This week, the Indiana Senate approved a bill that would require select welfare recipients to be tested for drugs. Under the Senate’s bill, which passed 34-14, individuals who were convicted of drug charges would have to undergo the screenings, regardless of when their convictions occurred or the severity of their crime.
In its current state, the bill says that if a person tests positive for drugs, they will not lose their benefits immediately, though they would be required to receive treatment. If a person tests positive three consecutive times, however, their benefits would be revoked for three months.
The Senate’s version of the bill is less aggressive than that of the House bill, which called for all welfare recipients to be tested for drugs and it would also put nutritional mandates on food stamps in an effort to prevent SNAP recipients from purchasing junk food.
Rep. Jud McMillin, a Brookville Republican who authored HB 1351, said the decision to test individuals convicted of drug charges is based on “responsible suspicion.”
I have a problem with McMillin’s position on this issue. Here’s why.
If a person was convicted of smoking marijuana at the age of 19, yet they are 50 years old now and haven’t touched drugs in more than 30 years, they would still be tested under the confines of the bill. I don’t understand how there would be “responsible suspicion” in this situation, which ultimately makes the screenings discriminatory.
So too are the House’s plans to restrict junk food purchased by food stamp recipients.
The issue I have with some politicians is they think of ideas that are supposed to solve problems, yet they don’t get to the true root of the problem, which oftentimes makes their suggestions, or more specifically, their bills and legislation, ineffective!
Rather than place a junk food restriction on food stamp recipients, perhaps lawmakers should dig a little deeper and learn why so many SNAP participants purchase junk food. More likely than not, it is because of their limited access to healthy food options. This is not an anomaly in low-income areas, it’s actually rather common. Visit any economically-depressed area and you will not find a plethora of quality restaurants or grocery stores. But if you are fortunate to find a grocery store, I can almost guarantee it will have very few, if any fresh fruits and vegetables.
If lawmakers actually frequented the areas that would most likely be impacted by their legislation, they would be surprised at what they saw. Rather than nice restaurants or a variety of grocery stores, they would probably see areas with an influx of check-cashing places, gas stations and liquor stores.
So rather than assume people on food stamps only buy junk food because they have some sort of a craving for it, perhaps lawmakers should be a bit more investigative in their approach.
I am in total support of accountability. I feel that we all should be responsible beings – especially those of us who may rely on additional assistance from the government. However, everyone deserves to be treated fairly – regardless of their background or current economic state.
Part of treating people fairly is to reduce the generalizations that can be limiting and discriminatory.
In response to naysayers of the Senate bill that would test individuals for drugs, Michael Young, who authored the legislation said, “We’re not trying to harm anyone. We’re just trying to help people who have an addiction.”
Here’s an eye-opener for Young: not everyone who engages in drugs are addicted. By no means am I upholding or supporting drug use, but I want to be clear in addressing Young’s stereotype. Some people use drugs recreationally. As wrong or indifferent as that is, not all users are addicts.
I commend lawmakers for trying to improve our community – locally and nationally, but in order to do so effectively, it’s imperative that they be closely connected with the community they serve. That means, being knowledgeable of the various challenges all people endure. Politicians must also be fair and uncompromising with legislation that impacts a diverse group of individuals and not a segmented population.
You can email comments to Shannon Williams at shannonw@indyrecorder.com.
