Drug testing at any level without evidence is wrong

Drug testing individuals that apply for welfare in three counties in Michigan have turned up zero results, as in, no individual tested positive.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  And of course, all the other words that can be used for meaning absolutely no one.

The outcry about drug testing comes from many groups.  The liberals, the anti-discrimination crowd and other left leaning government watch dog groups.  Opinions from the groups that I have read about claim that it is unfair to test people who are in desperate need for assistance for their own health and wellbeing as well as their families.

I say bunk.  That’s right, bunk.

Bunk, as in, it may be unfair, but that should not be the reason welfare applicants should not be tested for illegal drug use.  Being unfair is not a good enough reason to stop anything.  Life is unfair, as the expression goes, so live with it.

It is wrong on three different levels.  First, there is no evidence that the applicant has done anything wrong.  That means that the government can’t search a person’s body or belongings unless there is both real evidence that illegal drugs are being used and that the evidence has been presented in open court, where, the court rules that the evidence is worthy of a search warrant.

Then, and only then, can the individual be tested.  By the way, if the test comes back positive, the individual should be prosecuted for possession.  But, not deny benefits to any related individuals that are dependent.

The second level is that all individuals living in the country are to be treated as equals.  If the state thinks that individuals that are appling for welfare should be drug tested, then everyone who receives any type of assistance from the state should be tested.  People that live in a community where police and fire protection are provided should be drug tested.  The owners and executives from companies that receive tax breaks or other types of assistances from local and state agencies should be tested.  Otherwise we could select any socially hated class of people and start asking them to get drug tested.  Or, why stop there?  Let’s started walking into their home and check to see if anything is illegally going on.  It could be any immigrant that is living in the country, legal or not.  After all, an invasion of privacy in one area can be used to justify the invasion of privacy in other areas.

Of course, we could not do any of that because of the first level.

On the third level, the recipient of the benefits provided by the state, whether it is welfare or any other program, is that people have a right to it.  “Right?” you say, “where does it say they have rights in this area.”  Maybe not in the Constitution but certainly the law.  If a benefit program is created by an act of congress, at any level, and the guidelines of eligibility are outline, anyone who fits those guidelines has a right to the benefits if they so choose to apply for them.  Denying that right based on illegal search by the governing body is unconstitutional.

Whatever the rights or responsibilities are for the individual, others related and depended on the individual should not be punished.  Any individual that does anything wrong from murder to the use of illegal drugs should be treated as an individual not as a group.  The individual should be prosecuted, not the family.  Because a dad may use drugs illegally, does it mean that the mother and children are to be denied benefits?  The thinking, or so those that pushed for this legislation want us to believe, is that if the individual is doing something illegal, he or she will refrain from doing it so that his or her family can receive benefits.  As a side bar, that just might be the case here.  But, that individual should be denied, and not others related to him or her.

The reality here isn’t trying to weed out drug users in the system (no pun intended), it is to reduce the cost of welfare in the state budget to enable dollars to go elsewhere, like welfare for big business.  It is also to make good political public relations with the supporting constituents of the law makers that back the program.

The better effort by the state would be to increase the benefits paid to individuals so they can make time for educational programs, to provided educational opportunities, to provide real job training in fields that really matter to an economy that attract business, to ask the recipients to take responsibility for their success, to provide health care and ask for accountability from the recipients.  

Where are we going to find money for that you say?  

While it is a matter for another post, the money that was spent for this program would be the first place to start.

A common defense is the first purpose of government

As the election cycle approaches, those that are running for office including the presidential suite, will be telling us all the things government should or shouldn’t be doing. If we don’t layout a frame work of the purpose of government in advance, we could be pulled in many directions. We will also shift our own positions a dozen times as we hear good words from each of the candidates at all levels.

In the last post we outlined four primary pillars. They are protecting, educating, innovating and building. Clearly, the first, protecting, was the first reason individuals decided to create a community. Living together in an agricultural setting made individuals and families venerable to outside raiders. If everyone in the community came to the defense of any individual, the outside attacks were less likely.

Life in a community has evolved since that time and the definition of a common defense has expanded. Now there is still the risk of outside invaders. A strong military is needed to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. Not only from other countries with their military but also from their business practices, non military invaders, migration and diaspora.

But threats to the individual and the community come from three other areas. First, there is the criminal threat. This threat comes in big and small packages. It, of course, comes with the common criminal that local law enforcement can tamp down, but also from large organized criminal operations. This needs a national law enforcement agency that can move around the country where ever the threat exists.

Second, there is the threat that develops when there is a lack of standards in business, medical, construction and other industries. By establishing and maintaining common practices and standards, those that are honest can depend on them and those are not can be stopped.

Finally, the last is our own civil rights. This not only includes the encroachment of government on the individual’s liberties, but also those that would like to marginalize individuals that don’t fit a very narrow mainstream definition of behavior. It is just as important to enforce laws that prevent criminal activity as it is to prevent marginalizing individuals whose behavior may not be common, but their actions do not cause any injury or loss to any other individual.

As you can see, defense comes in many forms and at many levels. The ability of a community to defend individuals from many threats is the first priority of government. By creating an environment that allows individuals to freely live their own lives is the healthiest environment for the other three pillars.

More to follow on education, innovation and building.

-----

Governor Synder, please consider this

Arizona and Missouri have a good idea, but it only goes half way. Michigan would be smart to do the same thing only complete the job.

Since November of 2009 Arizona has required that welfare recipients not use drugs. If they do, they will lose their benefits. The state uses a survey of the applicants, as well as police and court records, to determine if someone should be tested. Since the start, only 16 have been identified. Eventually, one of the 16 was tested for drug use and denied benefits.

Missouri would like to do the same thing and legislation to allow it to do so was passed last week.

Michigan should go even farther. The Arizona and Missouri laws, for the most part, use “surveys” to determine if someone may be using drugs while accepting benefits. Michigan should make it mandatory as part of the application process and do random checks during the remaining time they are accepting benefits. The random tests should be at a scale that everyone will be checked at least once a month.

If someone is found to be using any illegal drugs, not only should they stop receiving benefits but they should then be ordered to attend a drug rehab program.

A community needs to take responsibility for those that may be unemployed for an extended period of time. But that doesn’t mean that the recipient should not take responsibility also. As in a post on this blog, Require a return on investment from unemployment, this should be a part of the overall requirements that both helps people become self sufficient and asks for a return from the benefits they are receiving.

Government Synder, please consider what they are doing in Arizona and Missouri.

-----

Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to a community

Without detailing study after study, educated people earn more money, they have less children and make better decisions in the market place and in the voting booth. Families that make education and lifelong learning their primary focus are functional and healthy. They have less issues with abuse. Communities that are populated by educated people have less crime and less blight. Communities with high education levels replicate themselves.

When one part of the complete quadrangle of education fails, the other parts must work twice as hard to be successful. The student, the family, the institution and the community must work equally as hard and work together for an education system to succeed.

That is why the Pontiac Promise Zone that was announced last month is so important.

The people who suffer the most from a community that has failed are the students. But, even in tough situations, if the individual student and his or her family can see the proverbial light at graduation from high school, they will feel a sense of hope. If they make the effort to graduate, they know they will be able to go on to college. The Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to thousands of children for many generations.

Let’s us all applaud the Pontiac Promise Zone and all those that have worked so hard to bring it to the community. This is a brilliant example of a community drawing together to build a better future.

-----

Require a return on investment from unemployment

A community can’t afford to make an investment and not expect a return. Sometimes communities make investments for direct economic return. They encourage a company to locate in the community with tax breaks because it brings in jobs. The return on investment from the increase in tax revenue from the income created can be calculated.

Sometimes, a community makes an investment knowing there will not be a direct economic return. A park in the center of town makes the living space much more pleasant. It may have economic value in the rise in housing prices, but many will not benefit from it because they will never sell their home.

In both cases, there is a expectation of a return on investment.

But, the investment a community makes in unemployment and welfare has little expectation of return. Part of that is because of the current system is a compromise between those that want to continue it and those that would like to end it. Some money is provided to help individuals and families, but not enough to have any real effect on solving the problems.

The reality is we need to invest more in unemployment and welfare. That would enable the community to expect much more in return and not just wait for things to fix themselves.

Consider; individuals are expected to live a law abiding life. But, some don’t. If we just asked them to stop committing the crime, nothing would happen. But, if we threaten them with punishment and carry out those threats when they commit a crime, it will reduce crime.

If we give individuals that are unemployed little money and ask them do a few things they won’t if there are no sanctions. But, if we provide enough money for them to make real change in their life and hold them accountable to it, most will.

Let’s make that change.

Make a sizable investment in unemployed individuals. Provide enough income to take care of some of their concerns like keeping up with the house payments, provide health care, pay the bills and provide nourishing food. This would enable them to devote their attention to improving their lives.

At first, they would be given enough time to solve their problems on their own. If they are not able to, then assign them a manager that will both guide them and hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. Now here is the catch, if the unemployed individual doesn’t do everything to help themselves while the community is making the investment, drop them from the program.

The investment needed and the sanctions for not taking full advantage of the program need to be worked out. It was not the purpose of this post to provide all the details – perhaps at a later date, one detail at a time. It is meant to examine the way we invest in the individuals that live in our community and what the expectation of return should be.

We formed communities because there is a benefit in living with others that will help in times of need. If we don’t receive any help, then why are we in a community? In reverse, if the individual that is asking for the help doesn’t help themselves in equal proportions (if not more) then they haven’t earned the community’s help.

-----