Soon, Georgia residents may have to be drug tested in order to receive (SNAP) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. The controversial measure, proposed by State Representative and Republican Greg Morris, has quickly made its way up the rungs—having been signed by other GOP state lawmakers—and now awaits the final signature of Governor Nathan Deal.
Requiring caseworkers to have “reasonable suspicion” before drug testing recipients, it aims to “reduce public money that supports illegal drug habits.” If passed, however, this measure could prove problematic in more than one way.
The obvious counter argument to this is: “If you’re clean, then why worry about being tested?” You’re right. If a welfare recipient is clean, then this measure would be null and void to them. But the problem isn’t in passing the test. The problem lies in both the threat of the test and the failure of the test.
Intentionally or not, Morris and other supporters of this measure have painted a fallacious picture of the welfare recipient in their threat of a drug test. This can be found in the measure’s proposal. In an interview with Georgia Health News, Morris claimed that the measure aims to stop funding drug habits. Morris seems to cast a mist of morality around the measure, telling GHN, “We have to do what we believe is right.” The problem here is that this goal of “severing the hand of enablement” only perpetuates the ongoing assumption that drug use is concentrated among welfare recipients.
The welfare recipient is easily painted as being a pothead, a crackhead or an alcoholic. Drug and substance abuse is being made synonymous with being poor. And while illegal drug use plays its part in communities below the poverty line, there are no facts to support the claim that its presence is bigger in these communities than that of more affluent ones. In fact, other states including Utah and Florida have already begun to drug test recipients. The percentage of failed test were marginally small, if not insignificant.
There are also ongoing assumptions about the face of the welfare recipient. The welfare recipient has been historically typecast as African-American, feeding several stereotypes about the African-American community. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, while 39.8 percent of welfare recipients in 2013 were black, 38.8 percent were white.
The fact that a measure has been created off of perpetuated stereotypes is baffling. Morris only fuels this when he had this to say about the required “reasonable suspicion” clause of the measure:
“If you roll up to a Zippy Mart® at 3 a.m. with hubcaps missing, wearing sunglasses, and buy three frozen burritos… There’s reasonable suspicion you’re high.”
The last time someone found “reasonable suspicion” off of someone’s purchased goods from a mini mart and their attire, he caught a lot of hell from the public.
Some welfare recipients have illegal drug habits. However, it’s not because they’re welfare recipients; it’s because they’re people who have illegal drug habits. Some of us have illegal drug habits. It would be naive to not acknowledge that smoking weed is a favorite pastime of many students. And yet, we will never be drug tested for going to school on tax payer’s money.
What if a recipient fails? According to this measure, they’ll be denied food stamps. Denying a person food because they have an illegal drug habit is barbaric. Forcibly starving someone into submission is inhumane. The measure also doesn’t consider recipients with children who need nourishment. So, their children should starve because of their parent’s “disobedience?” If our country were governed by this way of thought, people from all walks of life would be starving right now. Even if they’re using the food stamps to barter and purchase drugs, simply turning them away will not solve anything. These people need help. In fact, they need to be given more than food stamps.
If they’re going to go forth with this, the state should use this as a tool for not only locating drug users but directing them to drug and substance abuse services and programs. But doing so would not save tax payers money and contrary to Morris’ “mist of morality,” money is the goal here.
Besides the moral flaws of this measure, it is simply unconstitutional. Robert Caskey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s SNAP program in Atlanta informed Georgia in a letter that the measure is illegal under federal law. The federal government could and probably will sue Georgia if the measure is passed, which leads to millions being spent in court to fight a downhill battle. But Morris is no stranger to all things unconstitutional. He’s got a proposal on the back burner right now for the construction of a monument of the Ten Commandments at the capital, even though, as a religious statement, it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Again, this measure is largely based on fallacies—fallacies fed by perpetuated stereotypes. Holding someone’s plate hostage (literally) in the name of these fallacies should remain unconstitutional.
