 |
| I know Fergie doesn't have anything to do with this but her fly was open. |
That’s right – remember to zip up after your drug test Mr. Lawmaker – if drug testing welfare recipients is your polarizing hot topic then by all means grab your cup and endure what you create.
The past year has seen an unprecedented wave of Republican bills to drug test the poor and jobless. According to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies Twelve (12) states saw legislative activity around drug testing for UI benefits in 2010 and 2011, and one state (Indiana) enacted a law. You have nut jobs like S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley claiming that that fifty percent of recent job applicants at the Savannah River Site (SRS) failed drug tests while the other half “couldn’t read and write properly.”
Drug testing welfare recipients is just one of those polarizing issues that reeks of class warfare and does nothing positive for the people that most need our help – can we do no better than this while slashing other social programs that raise people up instead of isolating and reinforcing stereotypes?
Finally the Democrats have shown some balls and fought back against the blatant class warfare of those whose main emphasis is on drug testing welfare recipients while slashing social programs that support education, childcare and counseling. One of the most recent retorts comes from Georgia, where last month Democratic state Rep. Scott Holcomb introduced a bill requiring members of the local legislature to prove they're not Legislating Under the Influence.
Democrats in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have done the same thing. Tennessee state representative G.A. Hardaway said his bill to test lawmakers was inspired by constituents annoyed with a Republican welfare-drug-testing bill. "They said to me, 'how do we know y'all aren't on drugs?'" Hardaway told local TV station WMC-TV. "I thought, well, you don't."
Regardless of results (and if you do look at them you will find a low percentage of positive tests and that the programs are losing money). Instead I say let’s look at the causes rather than the symptoms of welfare dependence – poverty, lack of education, childcare, and transportation. Fund those solutions rather than drug testing.
There are additional causes for welfare dependence - mental and behavioral health problem that prevent them from finding and keeping jobs . Wouldn’t the money spend on ineffective drug testing (low % of positive tests) be better spent on the real causes? Wouldn’t counseling and education help make some of these people’s lives better? Perhaps even begin to reduce their dependence on welfare? At the other extreme, chemical testing will identify some casual drug users who do not have clinically significant abuse or dependence, and who have no employment or parenting problems.
Meanwhile states like Florida who implemented drug testing (at $30 bucks a test costing the state 28,000 – 30,000/month) are cutting Healthy Start services supports more than 14,000 women and children that are expected to lose free access to a litany of, such as prenatal care, mental health and substance abuse counseling and parenting education. Oh and by the way according to several news sources in Florida - One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling. Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line. The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.
And if you noted in this post – I didn’t even bring up the number of lawmakers who have been arrested in drug or alcohol incidents – so Mr. Lawmaker grab a cup and be sure to wash your hands when you are done.
Check out some of these resources
Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients – False Positives, False Negatives , Unanticipated Opportunities by Harold Pollack Department of Health Management and Policy http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/drugtest.pdf
I think another issue, especially in the African American community, is unequal enforcement of the law. Thirty years of research shows that the proportion of white and black kids using/selling drugs is basically the same. However, the black kids end up being jailed at 7 or 8 times the rate of the white kids. After that first prison sentence they are fucked. Similar issues can be found with Hispanics and Indians. Poor white kids also get hosed, not at the rate of minorities but worse than middle/upper class kids. We need to admit the war on drugs has failed, legalize them, and provide rehab when they want to get off or to have a semi-normal life. Alkies can work and I bet potheads and junkies can too.
ReplyDeleteregards to Medina64's comment
DeleteFirst, of course the arrests are higher with blacks and minorities. It's because these groups tend to live more in the inner cities where small time drug operations are more open and criminals are more easily caught. Whites living in inner cities would get busted at the same rate, it's just that more whites live out in suburbs where drug use isn't as out in the open.
But in terms of legalizing drugs I can tell you personally from being on narcotic pain medication for over 2 years - you have no freakin' idea what you're talking about. These things are nothing like alcohol or pot. They work their way into your system and latch onto your brain functionality and every cell of your body before you even know what's happening. All while slowly destroying your kidney and/or liver with no sign until it's too late. It's not like alcohol with 1/2 life per drink of about 1 hour and therefore you clearly have to keep injesting to sustain in your system. These drugs stay in your system 6-12 hours, so you can become addicted taking just 2-3 a day. And after awhile, you don't feel them in your system, but internal damage is being done anyway with very low doses. Also, some of the very same drugs that make you feel good for awhile also can make you feel suicidal. And again, I'm not talking abuse levels of meds - I'm talking Dr prescribed levels. In the right hands under medical care it's a mini-nightmare. In the wrong hands, with even the slightest ill intentions without a support group, legalizing these drugs would create a whole new statistic of teen suicide and deaths.
As in most debates there are plenty of sources to support opposing positions and legalizing drugs is no different – hell Wikipedia has a page that does it for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition#User_cost_of_drugsYou clearly see conflicting positions but what is not in conflict are the costs in terms of money and human life. This is what I believe.
DeleteAnonymous – I do not have any idea firsthand on the effects of hard core drugs but legalizing drugs is not about making it easier or more accessible for people. It is about decriminalization and advocating treatment. The effect of the war on drugs has resulted in increased crime (theft, violence, corruption) and drug prices and increases potency. [The Economics of Prohibition http://mises.org/daily/2269]
Economist Milton Friedman estimated that over 10,000 deaths a year in the US are caused by the criminalization of drugs, and if drugs were to be made legal innocent victims such as those shot down in drive by shootings, would cease to come about.
Let’s talk about the hard core drugs that are a large part of the problem - cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
The illegal drug trade is driven by profits and to increase profits you do one of two things – increase price or increase your number of customers – it is in a drug pushers best interest to increase his number of users – he has the motivation and means to recruit new users. At first the drugs are given freely and then over time the costs go up requiring the newly addicted individual to resort to various methods to pay for the habit. (see crime)
In my model the government would have facilities for administering and caring for hard core drug users. Drugs would be provided for minimal or no costs – the hard core addictive drugs like heroin would be free – a clean area would be provided for the drug user to experience his high – the user would be safe, there would be no risk of disease and it would be free. The user would have zero motivation for crime.
Along with this would come an opportunity for counseling – a system would be in place to provide medical support and rehabilitation (education, work opportunities). A process where an addict can be treated and weaned off of drugs is they so desire. There has to be a percentage of these users who do not want to be addicts – this approach would provide an opportunity for them to get help. Those who truly wish to be addicts and live this life would not be resorting to crime, would not be spreading disease and would not be in the streets dragging neighborhoods down. No one would use illegal drugs with their high costs and risk for prison.
The numbers are staggering for the amount of money that leaves this country due to the drug trade , the crime associated with addicts needing money to pay for the high costs of their habits (robbery, theft). Additionally this approach would instantly shut down the Mexican drug cartels and end the associated crime and violence including the high traffic in assault weapons. The cost in human life is well documented. Obviously I haven’t covered all things in this post but I wanted to add my thoughts to this offshoot from the original post.
Anon,
DeleteFirst I'm sorry to hear about the issue with pain meds, I've known several people over the years that have struggled with that exact problem including my mother. I'm not a druggie but I've known several, both in my family and out of it, and have seen the issues first hand. For a current example, go to YouTube and take a look at some of 6Cowboy6red6's videos.
My views are similar to COD's - I basically think people want to do three things, get laid, get high, and gamble. We've made them all illegal at times and created big criminal enterprises in the process. And the money is not just in the criminal's pockets, it is also in the prison industry, the legal industry (both prosecuting and defense - check out DWI stuff in Texas), and in the religious industry - moralizing makes money.
While your observations about the inner city have some truth there is a lot more to it than that - from the extension of slavery after the civil war using the legal system to the de facto slavery I was exposed to as a youth doing farm work in WNY alongside black migrants brought up from the south. If you are interested, U of Michigan school of social work has been examining this issue for decades and has many many articles on their web site. In addition, check out "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.
Backing up just a bit ..
ReplyDeleteCoD:
1. Are you saying that the statistics quoted by the S.C Gov are so inaccurate that she must be a "nut" to state them? Well then, I assume you have contradicting information that you can share with us so we all may benefit from your great wealth of knowledge.
2. How is Welfare/Drug screening "Class Warfare"? Welfare is only used by the lower class and with the criteria that those on welfare are not also taking illegal drugs. Since taking illegal drugs prevents one from working, this seems to be a very reasonable requirement. Of course, if the lower class feels they're being treated unfairly, they can stop collecting welfare checks.
Medina64:
1. Thanks for your concern. It sounds like you've got some idea what I'm talking about, so I'm surprised you're arguing it from the position you are. I'll explain below.
2. Are you suggesting there's (still) a significant enough amount of prejudice in the criminal enforcement system and that all of these statistics comparing black/white crimes is not accurate? There's a ton of data that would tend to disprove this argument, but I want to be clear the point your making first.
To the issue of legalizing (decriminalizing) drugs.
This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I've put a lot of thought into this and read your post many times. I know the position you're coming from: lower $$ and speculation of lower use/addiction. I'll send you one link that addresses this from a statistical/experimental/historical perspective (http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm).
This discussion isn't complicated but it requires that you're at least sane. For starters, in no real world is there going to be less drug use because drugs are more readily available. Don't believe me? Try this: Bring a box of donuts to work everyday for a month then stop. Two things will happen: 1. Almost no matter how many donuts you bring each day, they will all be eaten and 2. when the month is over people will want more donuts.
Your argument that "some" of those on drugs will want to get off of drugs and this provides them an opportunity to get counseling is flawed. If that were the case, more people would get off drugs today because anyone can freely check themselves into a rehab center without question.
Julie found two stories you should hear:
1. A teenager (~18 year old) got a hold of his parents medication (hydrocodone I think), mixed with alcohol and ended up dead.
2. An older lady on prescription pain medication took her dose but forgot she took it and so took another dose. Ended up dead.
My point is, it's not just drug addicts you'll end up killing, it's the people that just "try it once" or the "casual user". And like I said, some of these drugs are so strong that a casual user will be chemically addicted in a matter of a few weeks. How fast they become psychologically addicted depends on a lot of factors. Once you're psychologically addicted, it takes 3 years for the brain to readjust from the drug "high" to life's natural "highs".
The issues and complexity of allowing people to use the drugs you're talking about go on and on. I don't even know where to stop...
I don't always agree with your posts but at least they're usually well thought out - except this one. It seems that you've done a lot of research, but mostly on the cost and criminalization part of the issue. I really think you need to research the medical issues such as health risks, side affects, addiction/suicide rates, drug interactions, etc. before posting too many more positions like this. I'll be very surprised if after doing that research, your position doesn't change somewhat.
JF – I go one step further on the Halley issue – I’ll let her tell you that way I can save my great wealth of knowledge for the second point.
ReplyDeleteIn an interview with the Associated Press, Haley said she had repeated "a million times" without challenge her claim that "half" of workers applying for jobs at the Energy Department facility had failed drug tests, but that she had now learned her lesson and will be more careful in the future.
"I've never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you're given good information," Haley said. "And now I'm learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something."
She told the AP she was frustrated by being unable to document claims that have shaped her policy perspectives, including the demand for drug tests to receive unemployment benefits. She said she had met with people at the Savannah River Site as she campaigned for governor.
Now as far as me calling her a nut job let’s look again at what she said - Halley claimed half of the people who applied were on drugs and the other half couldn’t read –To reiterate - A standing governor of a state claimed 100% of the people who applied for a job in her state were incapable of performing the job – Now here is where I could run a bunch of redneck jokes but the facts are as of 2009 statewide adult illiteracy rate in South Carolina was 14.7 percent. And I will make the case that of 2011 the numbers are lower as they have been trending down since the 1992 rate of 20.6 percent. Most numbers I have seen for the percentage of job applicants that fail drug tests run between 1 and 2%. I have seen quotes for numbers a lot higher but they have all come from individuals rather than from government sources.
Bumb up the numbers anyway you see fit and you ain’t gonna get 100% - Halley’s claim is a bullshit, ,stereotypical claim that is completely irresponsible – How the f*&^ does that come out her mouth? An elected official – this isn’t entertainment – she is talking about the very people that she was elected to serve. Just because they are out of work doesn’t mean she gets to use the bully pulpit and denigrate them.
I will need another post to address the drug portion of your comment.
and to the second part of JF's comments re: drugs
ReplyDeleteSome things for you to consider and we can play let's swap links of research that shows drug prohibition works/doesn’t work but I prefer to look where there are actual results. You may question my sanity – but it’s not like I am the first to suggest that the current approach doesn’t work or that an approach like Portugal has adopted might work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
Portugal adopted The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. A vast expansion of harm reduction efforts, doubling the investment of public funds in drug treatment and drug prevention services, and changing the legal framework dealing with petty drug offences were the main elements of the policy thrust.
When a conservative station like Fox reports positive results in a progressive drug policy it is worth noting. FoxNews - Portugal's drug policy pays off; US eyes lessons
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/26/portugals-drug-policy-pays-eyes-lessons/#ixzz1jj3MXmh1
And to Julie’s points – this is not about the abuse of prescription drugs – you might want to take that up with the pharmaceuticals or the doctors who over prescribe. That is a topic for another time. This is about hardcore illegal drugs –
Your point regarding the addictive properties of the drugs – if your fear is that high school kids will flock en masse to the public government centers, undergo counseling , lay on the cot next to the hardcore addicts and come back to do it again and get severely addicted. To go through the eventual decline that addiction causes and other kids (their peers) will see that and say I want a piece if that - is in my opinion unfounded.
There are a percentage of people who will always go down that dark road – perhaps it is their brain chemistry. But if you eliminate the need to commit crime, offer treatment and education the Portugal model and others like it (mine for instance) will work.
My counter argument would be how’s that war on drugs going anyway?
The point is JF – I have an understanding of where you are coming from on the issue but I have given this a lot of thought and have followed the topic closely for years.
JF,
DeleteFirst, yeah I am saying that there is a significant amount of prejudice in the legal system. The Austin American-Statesman ran an article several years ago that pointed that out here. Basically, twice as many blacks as whites were stopped by cops. Since blacks at that time were about 10% of the population and whites were roughly 60% that meant that the black stoppage rate was 12 times that of whites. Now the kicker, they found half as much illegal shit in the black stoppages as they did the white - basically the probability of a black stoppage producing something illegal was 1/4 that of a white stoppage. Yeah, kinda anecdotal but I could find a bunch more - like I said before, go the the Michigan site for more.
Regarding drugs - Prohibition was the experiment. By the time they ended it liquor was everywhere and it was clear that it was a failure. An interesting book on this subject is "The Strength of the Wolf" about the Federal Bureau of Narcotics - the predecessor of the DEA and how a lot of current drug policy came into being - and how the various intelligence services have supported drug trafficking and traffickers. For example, weed and coke are illegal because the Depression killed heroin traffic and the FBN was about to be dissolved - so they lobbied to get those two things declared illegal in order to keep going. I don't do drugs and I don't like to see people become junkies or meth-heads. But the reality is that it is going to happen. And one of the other realities is that Mexico is becoming destabilized over drug trafficking. We need to address that or we may have another very big problem facing us. We've proven over the last 40 years that criminalization is not going to work and that the unintended consequences of our drug policies are uniformly disastrous. I think my point, and COD's, is that we need to face up to reality not double down on our bet.
CoD, I finally had some time to research the statistical side of this argument (instead of the personal side) without staying up until 4:00am. So I could put some clear-headed thought into this.
ReplyDeleteI looked into the case study you mentioned - Portugal, which to me makes perfect sense. But I want to be clear because what I read as Portugal's model is somewhat different from what think you're recommending. I know you've done a lot of research on this issue and certainly don't need me to explain Portugal's policies, but I'm doing this for my benefit. Please correct me where I'm wrong.
As I understand it, what Portugal did/continues to do is decriminalize drugs. A drug addict found in possession of drugs is still arrested, but then offered counseling and rehabilitation instead of jail time. They are also offered substitution treatment where they are given a non-addictive (non-"high" producing) drug such as methadone or a high dosage of buprenorphine.
In any case, I didn't find a reference that led me to think these addicts are given hard-core illegal/addictive drugs of choice, let alone at tax payer $$.
We didn't touch on this last point much, but in a program to treat drug addicts, I wouldn't want my taxes being used to feed the addiction. I have no numbers to back this up or comment intelligently on how this affects the deficit and debt, it's just a personal preference. Similar to the issue the Catholic Colleges and Universities have with being forced to include contraceptives with medical insurance provided to employees (Obamacare rule). I have no numbers to back this up, and no idea how this would impact the deficit and debt - it's just a personal opinion.
Given that - can you clarify your position with respect to Portugal's policies? I just want to understand if you believe the US should follow what Portugal did or go a few steps further.
To clarify - Portugal’s policy is different than what I proposed but its success is indicative of what can be accomplished when comparing to the U.S.’s current policy of prohibition and incarceration. Portugal’s policy is similar to mine in some respects – the counseling and rehabilitation. What it doesn’t address is the crime associated with funding the habit, the monetary reward to the drug dealers to recruit new users increasing the overall number of addicts, the billions of dollars following out of the country to illegal drug cartels which results in havoc being wreaked on those countries. So you and I agree that there are some positives in the Portugal program and I am reconsidering my approach as we discuss this.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the drugs you suggested methadrone or buprenorphine would be the ones made available in my model instead of the hard core drugs I suggested.
You had mentioned at several points that you wouldn’t want your taxes to find the addiction – if we substituted the drugs above would you be in favor of that? My concern would be that methadrone/buprehophine are not powerful enough to provide the high that the users want. I have no knowledge of that. Given what you have gathered from Portugal – what would you do here?
And to the point that Catholic Institutions have been forced to include contraceptives with medical insurance - Anyone with medical insurance can choose to not use contraceptives. That should be the decision of the insured and not controlled by the Church or a business for that matter. Healthcare should not be a cafeteria like option where employers would dictate employees options. The options should be the same for everyone and everyone should get to make their own choices. A recent report (Guttmacher Institute) shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. So clearly the congregation is not in step with the Catholic hierarchy. If your argument is based on the morality of funding something a person/organization would be morally opposed to then I would counter with any number of activities funded by our tax dollars like the Iraq War or Iran Contra affair or authorized interrogation practices that are illegal under U.S. and international law that I strongly disagree with. Or even something like WWII which was seen as a moral action. I am sure there were people who were morally opposed to it the time.