New drug testing plan for welfare recipients offered

CHARLESTON — Making waves with it a second year running, Delegate Craig Blair offered “a new and improved” drug testing plan for welfare recipients Wednesday, prompting the usual storm of protest, along with a special prayer from his chief critic.

Blair became a news item on a number of major cable programs last year when he tried to impose random drug testing on West Virginians getting food stamps, welfare benefits and jobless benefits.

This time around, he has narrowed the hunt to those on welfare and members of the Legislature.

“It’s about doing the right thing toward the taxpayers and the people that are addicted to drugs,” Blair, R-Berkeley, intoned.

“It only applies to people on welfare. It has nothing to do with food stamps and unemployment. Welfare only.”

Blair said informal polls reflected public support ranging from 86 to 93 percent, and he reminded fellow delegates this is an election year and those opposing him would have to answer to those voters.

A candidate for the Senate himself, Blair vowed to take the drug testing message everywhere he campaigns.

“Are you ready for another prayer?” Delegate Sally Susman, D-Raleigh, asked Speaker Rick Thompson before directing her supplication in Blair’s direction.

“May the good Lord bless and keep you. May you never be downtrodden and poor as are the wonderful citizens of West Virginia you now slander.

“People who worked hard all their lives to raise their families and now find themselves in dire straits. May the Lord have mercy on your soul.”

Earlier, Susman accused Blair of crafting a “racist” bill, only to have the delegate angrily respond, pointing out his wife is of “mixed heritage” and his father-in-law is black.

“I reject the idea this bill is racist,” Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, said in blasting the proposal.

“However, it is seriously classist. It’s picking on poor people.”

Health and Human Resources Chairman Don Perdue, D-Wayne, ignited the same avenue of complaint — that Blair’s bill is targeting the poorest people in West Virginia.

“What are they, let’s see — they’re poor,” he scoffed.

“Yeah, that’s it. They’re not pretty, generally. They don’t dress real good most of the time. Doggone it, they’re spending our money. They’re our brothers, our sisters, mothers, cousins, aunts and uncles — that’s who they are. You can’t turn the war on poverty into the war on the impoverished.”

Blair pointed to another major difference in this year’s version.

A year ago, he would have shut off assistance to those on the dole who tested positive a second straight time.

In this version, a second positive test isn’t grounds for being shut off if the recipient is enrolled in a rehabilitation effort. And in that regard, Blair said he learned of 63 places where help is available to addicts.

“Opportunities do exist for those that want to get off drugs and back to work,” Blair said.

Blair reminded the House that Arizona, Missouri and Kansas have passed similar legislation, and the only such law ever held unconstitutional was one enacted in 1998 in Michigan, but ultimately, it was upheld by a higher court.

Even so, Delegate Joe Talbott, D-Webster, said Blair’s bill wouldn’t pass muster under the Fourth and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“This bill is totally unconstitutional,” he said.

Moreover, Susman said a letter from the state Department of Health and Human Resources points out the kind of testing Blair has in mind cannot be perfected for five years and would be expensive to administer.

“This is just a bad idea,” she said. “It does insult the people of the state.”

Blair said the bill wouldn’t penalize anyone for ingesting prescribed medications, after Perdue said he would likely fail such a test because he is on medications for a number of ailments.

“Our goal is to get people out of poverty, to get them jobs, to get them back on their feet,” Delegate John Overington, R-Berkeley, countered.

“If addicted to drugs, the status quo is not acceptable. This proposal is a way to get them where they are given help, give them something to get back on their feet.”

Getting addicts unhooked would give them more discretionary money, Blair said.

“If you quit doing drugs, you have a lot more money in your pocket,” he said.

“It’s no different from quitting drinking alcohol. It’s no different from quitting cigarettes. It’s no different from cutting back on the amount of food you eat.”

By Mannix Porterfield