JUNEAU — Adults applying for cash public assistance would have to declare their sobriety under a bill heard by an Alaska House committee Tuesday.
It’s a reworked version of HB16, introduced by Rep. Wes Keller, R-Wasilla. The measure initially would have allowed the state to conduct “random and suspicion-based” drug and alcohol testing of adults who receive cash public assistance.
The random-testing requirement was seen by some as an unconstitutional search and seizure.
HB16 was set for a hearing before the House Health and Social Services Committee last month, but Keller pulled it to do additional work on it.
The new version unveiled Tuesday would scrap the random testing element and instead require recipients to sign a sworn statement saying they don’t abuse alcohol or use illegally obtained drugs. They also must declare they won’t engage in such actions while they receive cash assistance.
An individual could be denied benefits if he or she makes a false statement. An investigation of applicants or recipients could include drug or alcohol abuse testing.
Proponents say the state should not give money to people who might use it to feed a substance addiction.
But Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, said the testing scheme still constitutes an illegal search, despite removing the random testing element from the bill.
“There may not be a constitutional requirement for a (welfare) program to exist. However, once the state establishes a program, it must do so in a way that meets constitutional requirements,” he said.
“The way it’s written, everybody still gets tested,” Mittman told The Associated Press.
Rep. Benjamin Nageak, who called himself a product of public assistance, worried the bill skirts around the substance abuse issue and could punish children who benefit from cash assistance but have parents with substance abuse problems.
“Alcohol dependence and alcoholism is a disease,” the Barrow Democrat said. “Unfortunately, this bill won’t stop the disease.”
The bill would also require participants in the Alaska temporary assistance program — which provides cash assistance to families — to swear in their statement that members of the family do not and will not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol.
“I’m not sure how we can have the person who is applying for temporary assistance give a sworn statement that nobody in the family is going to abuse alcohol or use illegally obtained drugs,” said Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer. “They are swearing in a sworn statement that none of the kids are going to do some of the things that kids do.”
The state Department of Health and Social Services would be allowed to test applicants and recipients if they have a reasonable suspicion of drug and alcohol abuse. Nageak said the bill doesn’t define what constitutes “reasonable” suspicion, and Seaton added that the bill doesn’t say when alcohol use crosses the line into abuse.
Monitoring and investigating behavior might prove difficult, as most of Alaska’s welfare programs don’t require in-person meetings, said Ron Kreher, director of public assistance for the department.
“We rarely get to see a client face-to-face, especially those that are in rural Alaska,” he told the committee.
Comments (36)
Add commentsure
hope it passes
Crazy waste of time
In so many ways. The original bill, the one that allowed the state to conduct random and suspicious based drug testing, possibly violates the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments. Now this watered down version just requires a "promise" of sobriety? It looks to me that Rep. Wes Keller is grasping at straws to keep a bad bill alive. Assuming that welfare recipients are more likely to be drug abusers isn't correct. According to the ACLU, 70% of all drug users are fully employed. It has been tried and shot down in a few states before and proven to be a huge waste of money. If we are going to discriminate against and subject a whole class of citizens to government intrusion, I think it should be elected officials. How about we start with Rep. Wes Keller?
Drug testing
Before a leggie can vote. Based on some of these bills, they must be smoking something.
Oh, horsesh*t...
This bill wouldn't violate anyone's 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, no matter what the ACLU says.
Receiving state-aid is a voluntary program, nothing mandates you to apply for it.
Wastefull Representative,
How much was this man paid to think up this bill and rewrite it. How many of his cronies were paid to sit at the bar and discuss it with him. Sheesh what a waste.
Yah, sure I will sign the piece of paper if I am ever to get cash assistance, if Wes Keller and all of his cronies doing nothing are willing to sign it too. Lets go ahead and add all federally and state funded employee's sign the same paper. I never ask someone to do something that I am not willing to do myself.
What ya say Wes are you going to sign the paper??
Wastefull Representative,
How much was this man paid to think up this bill and rewrite it. How many of his cronies were paid to sit at the bar and discuss it with him. Sheesh what a waste.
Yah, sure I will sign the piece of paper if I am ever to get cash assistance, if Wes Keller and all of his cronies doing nothing are willing to sign it too. Lets go ahead and add all federally and state funded employee's sign the same paper. I never ask someone to do something that I am not willing to do myself.
What ya say Wes are you going to sign the paper??
This is a waste of money
Although some state benefit receipiants do abuse substances, I don't think the majority do. I have seen and read about similar bills passing and a whopping one person was caught with a failed ua after tens of thousands were spent on testing.
Making people swear that their family members won't do drugs or abuse alcohol? That is one way to deter a worried parent or family member for speaking up if a household member needs help. How ridiculously counterproductive.
I'm not saying that the idea of drug testing is flawed. If I received state money, I would have no problem submitting to a drug test. I don't think I could guarantee that my soon to be teenager wouldn't go do some typical teenager experimentation after I swore otherwise though. I'm a great parent and so were mine. I still experimented with pot at cope park a few times long ago and luckily I stopped before I got my butt whooped.
Echo the waste of time sentiment
http://sequentialhealth.com/category/drug-free-workplace/page/3/
Such garbage
I don't want my tax dollars going to someone willingly participating in illegal activity. If you don't want to be drug tested, don't apply for assistance.
"My tax dollars". Beg your pardon but once you have signed the
check over to government it is no longer yours. Government can, and does, dole it out as it sees fit. With all of Rep. Wes Keller's rhetoric I have yet been shown data which would support his supposition leading to additional monies being diverted to private industry specializing in such drug testing methodology. (I am not aware of any state government branch doing so.)
This watered down version is just a foot in the door to be revisited. It may also allow Rep Keller to save a little face.
Abusing the system
In my opinion, based on what I've seen and heard, there are more people abusing this system than you know. I have a neighbor collecting welfare benefits and Section 8, who has been busted for dealing and still deals today. I know of people trading their Quest card for drugs and alcohol. I know of one married couple who divorced, yet still live an active "married" life together, just so they can claim single with dependents status and receive welfare. This "husband" abuses pain medications. These abusers of the system are clever and will take advantage of free money to pay for their addictions. It really is sad because there are legitimate families who truly need this help till they can support themselves and their children. My solution is to give the recipients an account at the store they shop at with restrictions, send their rent and bill payments directly to the vendors, a monthly bus pass, and no cash. The recipient's requirement in order to receive benefits is to receive solid education on budgeting/money management; job training or job placement; and counseling where they can discuss and plan out their future goals on how they will get off welfare and become productive citizens. If they abuse drugs or alcohol, there should be referrals and treatment offered. If the adult(s) are convicted of drug or alcohol abuse, then their benefits are cut off and they are on their own. This last part should be fully explained. One whole day should be mandated where they will view movies of this scenario and hear people teach about this. Children are included so while the recipient's are fulfilling these requirements, child care would be provided. This is a basic idea but when I was on welfare, this plan would have been extremely helpful for me. Then last but not least, all the organizations in Juneau, for example, should fully cooperate and work together. This should not become a hardship to do this and give anyone the runaround or send this person there or all over Juneau! When the person comes in try to do it all at one place and not send that person all the way downtown to T & H just because that person is native. Combine non-tribal and tribal offices if you have to.
couple years behind
This should of been done along time ago. Not only drug testing but you should have a certain amount of time you can be on assistance unless you have a medical condition. It would be nice if someone paid for my cable, electric, and oil. Drive by any of the so called Low Income housing facilities in this town and see how many people drive nicer cars then you do.... Direct TV in all the apartments seriously.. This is what is taking this country down.. It does not pay to work and people are figuring that out...
majority
Ask these same people to be tested as they draw from the same source for their paychecks. At 200.00 dollars a day you as "taxpayers" should be concerned about where our elected officials spend this perdiem. They have more money to abuse alcohol and drugs then the average public assistance recipient. Pass this law with the ammendment that requires all recipients of state money be required to drug test. Any illusions that all our elected officials would pass?
This bill is just a profit for the testing industry
And a campaign contribution for Mr. Keller.
I'll take a drug test when the legislators give us a breath test before taking the floor to do the peoples business. I don't want my tax $$ funding drunken legislators. I worked many years serving them...I know plenty high functioning alcoholics on the hill. And no...they don't sober up for work. I've served the "fixers"
Wanna play games....?
Well, if they want to bark about their constitutional rights, end the programs. Oh yea, then the drug dealers wouldn't get free housing provided by us... That's right, they're entitled to it...
Oh no, you're violating my rights by giving me a free roof over my head then making sure I'm not blowing my money on meth or smoking crack with all my babies in the room... Boo hoo...
Sorry, I know WAY too many junkies in free ride housing in Juneau, both dealers and users.
Constitution...
Let's break it down...
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
First, Amendment 4 secures their houses. Do they own these houses? No, they don't! Are the houses getting searched, no they aren't. If they don't pass a drug test, they are asked to leave the property. If I drop my swimsuit at the pool they can ask me to leave. So, I keep my suit on. If I walk in the lobby of the city pool naked, they can ask me to leave. Is that unconstitutional? You break the rules, you lose your priveledges.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
They aren't being charged with a crime. They aren't being denied life, liberty or property. They are being denied a free ride to get their lives together. They DO NOT have ANY claim to the property!
Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
THEY HAVE NO CLAIM TO THIS PROPERTY! IT IS A PRIVELEDGE THEY EVEN GET TO USE IT!
Talk about walking on the Constitution! Now getting assistance is looked at as their 'property'?
EXACTLY HOW IS THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
If they are abusing drugs ...BUST UM
But dont spend my tax $$$ freely because you assume someone that needs aid might might abuse drugs. BS...if you know um call the welfare office and the cops. Don't be so hung up on principal that you agree to pay more than the state will save simply so you won't feel ripped off.
Nice Car
So wait - if I have a nice car that I bought and paid for as a part of a two-income family and all of the sudden I find myself in the middle of a divorce, and now have to take care of myself and my children on a single income, I should sell my car and buy a POS beater because of appearances?
Or maybe if I have a nice car, I shouldn't be allowed to have friends who live in subsidized housing. Sorry, single-mom bff that I have known since childhood, I can't visit you anymore. I know you don't do drugs and are gainfully employed, but I don't want my nice car parked in your lot giving people the wrong idea about your wealth.
Maybe I am being a little snarky here, but the point I am trying to make is this - cruising through the lot of low-income housing once or twice does not give you enough insight as to what is really happening there. To make assumptions of need based on faulty logic and missing information misses the point and makes you look like a jerk.
Mama T
You must not be familiar with the powers that the welfare office has and JPD has all the time in the world to watch low income housing. Mama T, sorry, they don't have the time or manpower it would take to remove the junkies from low income housing.
Ok, maybe not the 5th
It may not violate the 5th amendment as there would not be a criminal trial. Although self incrimination comes to mind But I believe it violates the 4th amendment as an unreasonable search of persons. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. No law shall be made to protect or punish one class of citizens. This bill targets poor people and it could be argued that it would be unintentionally racist. A larger portion of certain races in certain areas may be welfare recipients.
To carry it further every PFD applicant is seeking state assistance. Out state money also assists our legislators to the tune of about $70,000 to $90,000 a piece per year. Should we not then test every PFD applicant and legislators?
I am not a fan of welfare. There is too much fraud and abuse. But I would hate to see rights or dignity diminished. Even if its other peoples rights and dignity.
We are about to put oil and gas corporations , who make billions in profit, on the state welfare yet we want to put a single mother of 3 through the hoops to get a few dollars in groceries. And for what? What is the end game, to save a few dollars in welfare, to treat the addicted or to punish the poor?
repost
I double thumbed it again
Voting is voluntary...maybe
Voting is voluntary...maybe we should have a drug test for that too?
In Alaska our right to privacy shall not be infringed. Period.
The State has a program for the poor. It cannot search the urine of people applying just because someone wants to. It has to show a compelling evidence to violate anyone's privacy.
And remember-we are all innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you need public assistance is not proof of wrong doing, despite the wanton disdain of so many "superior" people.
Wren, if you call Wellfare
Wren, if you call Wellfare office with credible evidence that someone is abusing the system they investigate. I've done it. Don't lie to make your points, you know of multiple dealers on Wellfare? How? Seriously a respectable upstanding citizen like yourself would have what business knowing people that deal drugs and that they are on Wellfare?
I'm curious as to how they can get by the privacy aspect since it is legal to have limited amounts of marijuana in your home because of privacy laws in this state.
You either want the
You either want the government in EVERYONE'S lives or nobody's.
Picking and choosing.
free housing?
I've applied for this so called free housing. It requires a background check and a verifiable income before an application is accepted.
There is a deduction for electric bills also based on income.
I've never heard of any housing giving free cable.
My mother lives in one of these complexes and she receives food stamps. Perhaps she should be subjected to the same indignities as the other recipients. She is pushing 80.
Her social security income for being a working mother all her life is a joke. She has to live for a month on amounts our state legislators recieve in less than a week in per diem not counting the salary and office expense checks.
I've been on public assistance and took every opportunity to get clear of the situation.
Want to end entitlement spending? Demand an end to outsourcing and tax breaks for corporations that practice it.
Walk the Walk
If the Legislature wants to make sure tax monies are not going to people who are abusing drugs and alcohol, then should they be checking themselves as well? Or are they above that scrutiny? If they have nothing to hide, why not? I'm sure that there are no drugs being used on the Hill whatsoever, right?
Voter Initiative
What we need is a new voter initiative requiring random drug testing of everyone within the capitol.
sign the papers
don't state employees already sign a paper on employment
that they won't use drugs or booze??
Orions...
It may not violate the 5th amendment as there would not be a criminal trial.
It is part of the application for welfare. They are not being convicted of a crime! They would also not be searched. They would be applying for free/low income housing or free food, just like applying for a job. Is it a violation of ones rights to have to pee in a cup before driving an 18-wheeler?
There would be no self-incrimination. If you use, don't apply for a free ride.
Equal protection under the law. If you pass, you can qualify for welfare. If you do not pass, you will not qualify.
Punish one class of people? Are you saying all poor people are drug addicts?
Racist? Are you saying all of any race of people are drug addicts?
Sounds like you are more racist and classist than I just by implying that it would somehow affect classes and races differently. The law would be equal across the board!
I'm not sure how our legislators receive funds from our PFD. That sounds like some very fancy accounting as their wages aren't even that high. Closer to $54k per year.
Your dignity is diminished when you spend your money on drugs when you use your children as on your application to use my tax dollars to pay for the roof over your head.
Your rights are not diminished because you are given a choice to use or not to use. You can use and not get assistance or you can not use and get assistance. Pretty simple mathematics. Even a meth head can solve that problem.
If that single mother of three isn't smoking crack, then she won't have a problem will she? Maybe we should not require an application at all, just have an open door policy for all government subsidised housing, since the applications themselves discriminate against people who can't write in English, might be of color, might be of a lower class, and might disqualify them for whatever reason.
To treat the addicted? I'm all for spending tax dollars to provide treatment for addicts. I have no issue with that. But not to give them free housing while they're pumping herione into their veins! That's just throwing away money and enabling the addict!
Daffy
Yes, you should be required to sell your car before you impose upon taxpayers to support you and your issue. I am one Republican that believes that until you get off the dole AND REPAY ALL THAT YOU COLLECTED WHILE ON THE DOLE you and any partner or spouse you have should be required to have an abortion and not have any more children for taxpayers to support. Yes, I certainly support taxpayers paying for the abortion - a great financial return to taxpayers for the small cost of the abortion. As a matter of fact taxpayer-funded abortions are likely to be a good value in any event; if the people who had the sex don't want the kid then neither does the state. Who told you that taxpayers owe people something just because those people are alive?