Mo. House passes bill on drug testing
Federal aid recipients and elected officials would also be tested.
Published Feb. 12, 2010
Welfare applicants or recipients and elected officials would be drug tested if a bill passed Thursday by the Missouri House of Representatives is made law.
House bill 1377, which passed 114-39, would require an estimated 30,000 people in the state to go through a drug screening process prepared by the Department of Social Services.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston, said she wants Americans' tax dollars spent right.
"I just find that my constituents have a real concern with subsidizing anyone on drugs with welfare," Brandom said. "A survey conducted in 2008 of every home in my district shows 91 percent of them believe (welfare) applicants should be tested, and a poll last summer showed 80 percent wanted drug testing."
Brandom did not disclose the source of the poll.
Rep. Mary Still, D-Columbia, strongly opposed the bill. She said it is unwarranted and a waste of resources at this time.
"This bill stereotypes people," Still said. "There's no real indication that people that seek assistance are more likely to be on drugs than any other segments of society."
If the legislation passes, elected officials would also be tested before entering office and every two years after. A refusal to take the test is considered an admission of guilt.
Bob Quinn, Missouri Association for Social Welfare executive director, said requiring elected officials to be drug tested was injected into the bill as a distraction.
"If they were really trying to help they'd drug test everyone who has their hands on the public piggy bank," Quinn said. "To just single out people that are in a bad place and need assistance to meet daily necessities is just mean spirited public policy."
After pushing this bill into the Senate, Brandom said she hopes to inspire people to stop using drugs. A similar bill, sponsored by Nevada Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, is being held up by Senate Democrats.
"The point is to encourage people to not take drugs," Brandom said. "If a parent tests positive they lose their welfare check for a year but dependents can get it from a third party."
The definition of a third party would be determined by the Department of Social Services, Brandom said.
Critics of the bill question whether this legislation would affect the addicts or the dependents of addicts more, regardless of third party inclusion.
If the child received the money from a third party provider, a family's income would be reduced because a parent who tests positive would be ineligible for funds. There is no way to make sure the money meant for the child does not go back to feeding the parent's drug abuse, Still said.
Social work professor Kalea Benner said it is unfair to say there are higher rates of drug abuse for welfare recipients.
"I don't believe the majority are on drugs," Benner said. "They're creating a burden on tax payers based on a minority (of drug users)."
The cost to test each applicant would be $55, according to an analysis of the bill by the House Fiscal Review Committee.
The total financial impact of the legislation on the state budget is unknown but is expected to be more than $3.6 million in fiscal year 2012 and more than $3.7 million in fiscal year 2013.
Addae Ahmad, a 1988 MU alumnus, has three family members receiving welfare. He said the bill is a huge invasion of privacy.
"If people want to take drugs or other substances that have been deemed contraband then that is their view," Ahmad said.