MRN www.morecovery.org today urged members to contact their State Senators and express opposition to the recently passed Missouri House Bill 30, now sent to the Senate for consideration. HB30 requires the Dept. of Social Services to develop a program to test applicants and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families when a caseworker believes the person is engaged in illegal drug use. Further, HB30 specifies that a person who tests positive for an illegal drug will be declared ineligible for TANF benefits for one year beginning on the date of the required administrative review hearing. The person who tests positive will be referred to a treatment program approved by Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
Discouraging drug use and referring at-risk individuals to evaluation and treatment resources are positive goals. This punitive approach, however has numerous flaws.
One obvious issue is that it solely targets individuals living in poverty. Public assistance comes in many forms, such as public funding and tax reductions for favored real estate developments, or income tax deductions for interest paid on homes: Recipients of these public funds would rightly question the constitutionality of applying the guidelines of HB30 to them. Another issue relates to resources: Missouri has already reduced funding for drug abuse treatment. Spending money on laboratory testing and referring individuals to treatment programs with waiting lists is the practical result of implementing HB30.
HB30 is inconsistent in that it ignores alcohol abuse and dependence. Alcohol remains the most common drug of abuse. Should this precedent be applied to tobacco use, or gambling? The provision requiring a one year ineligibility punishment for an individual testing positive does not provide incentive for the individual to enter treatment, and does not recognize the realities of addiction. If an individual is addicted, there is a strong possibility that during recovery a relapse will occur. For the individual who has a relapse to lose needed support for a year would likely be disruptive to recovery. For the children supported by TANF, the reduction in family benefits will further compound the problems stemming from poverty.
If our intent is truly to reduce the impact of drug use for citizens affected by poverty, then we should support adequate funding for prevention and treatment. Punitive approaches are ineffective (look at our growing prison population). We know a lot about what works for people who are at-risk or who are struggling with addictions. We know treatment is cost-effective. Are we willing to apply our knowledge?
To contact your State Senator and make your opinions known, go to www.senate.mo.gov.
Thank you for thinking about these issues and reading my personal perspective.
Larry Gale, PhD
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
