A poor way to treat those in need

There is, apparently, a school of thought in this country that says if you live below the poverty line, it is because you do not aspire to do better. After all, in America, theoretically, anyway, anyone can grow up to be President. Therefore, it should be easy to escape even grinding poverty if you have enough ambition. And for those who rely on programs such as Welfare, they are thought to be singularly lazy, shiftless, individuals who want only to have everything given to them, with no effort required on their part. And lately, in our area, it seems there are those who think that if you are on Welfare, you are also likely to be on drugs.

In the years before the drug scare really hit this area hard, I worked for a fellow who was an alcoholic. An alcoholic, as the old joke goes, differs from a drunk in that he must pay dues and go to meetings. But there is one bigger difference between the two, as my old boss told me, as each day, an alcoholic must make a decision. It is a question he asks himself every time he wakes up, and it goes something like this: “Yesterday, I did not drink. But today is a new day, and today I must decide anew, will I take a drink today, or will I remain sober?” And each day, hopefully he can answer himself by saying, “Today, I believe I will choose to remain sober.”

My old boss was a successful man. I will not go into the details of his life, but suffice it to say he was intelligent, even likeable on occasion. He certainly did not fit the stereotype of an alcoholic. And while I did not press him as to the typical Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) member, he told me that AA’s membership was not unlike a cross section of society. You might find blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, housewives, and professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and even judges. Alcohol, as my old boss was fond of pointing out, does not discriminate. It can ensnare rich or poor, black or white, male or female, and all with equal enthusiasm.

Illegal drugs are a great deal like alcohol. Prescription pain killers, for example, seemingly the drug of choice for so many addicts, will ensnare its victims as indiscriminately as does alcohol. The only difference between the two addictions is that mere possession of alcohol will not, by itself, merit a lengthy prison sentence. And alcohol does not require that the addict go to outrageous measures to obtain it. But like alcoholics, those hooked on illegal drugs can also come from all walks of life. And if there are more drug addicts who live in poverty, it may be because of the illegal nature of this addiction that requires they must pay much more for their poison of choice. In other words, the drugs impoverish the user. The user is not an addict because he is poor.

By equating poverty and drug use, all that is accomplished is making life tougher on those who do not need any additional burdens. It isn’t as though the poor don’t face enough obstacles in life. The working poor, for instance, who do not have access to financial institutions, must use check cashing services that can charge anywhere from five to fifty dollars just to cash a paycheck. And there are those rent-to-own centers, the ones that do not require a credit check, but who make up for it by charging as much as three or four times for an item than a reputable dealer might. It is the poor who frequently are their customers. And if the poor need some funds to tide them over until the next payday, they can always postdate a check with a payday lender. Never mind that the interest rates on these “loans” would make a usurer blush. These are but a few examples of the way our society preys on those from the lower income stratum.

In the Bible, there is the story of the Prodigal Son. This fellow demands his share of the inheritance from his father’s estate, then takes it, goes abroad and wastes it all in “riotous living”. Only afterwards does he come to his senses as he labors as a swineherd, and he resolves to go to his father, and ask him for mercy. Of course his father is overjoyed at the return of his son, and he restores him fully to his former position, making for a happy ending for everyone, with the exception of the Prodigal’s brother, who feels that he has been slighted, considering that he has never strayed from his father, and yet the one who did stray is now being feted with “the fatted calf”.

In the story “Should welfare checks require drug tests?” in Tuesday’s edition of the Appalachian News-Express, the sponsor of a bill that would require just that, State Rep. Melvin Henley, D. Murray, reveals that it was complaints from his “working-class constituents” that prompted him to file this piece of legislation. These ”working-class constituents” are not unlike the brother of the Prodigal Son. They go to work everyday, after all, and abide by the rules of society, which requires many times, that they take drug tests to keep their jobs, while, in their minds, those on welfare follow no rules, but take that check and live “riotously” on the proceeds, in much the same way the Prodigal Son took his inheritance and wasted it.

Except that welfare recipients are not living as the Prodigal Son. Welfare is not an endless gravy train on which the lazy and shiftless can exist forever. By law, those on welfare are limited as to the amount of time they can collect most benefits. The welfare reform law, enacted under former President Bill Clinton, was meant to steer the recipient to work within two years of first receiving assistance. If welfare works as intended, those who need it temporarily will, in the end, find employment and join those who are now gainfully employed. And it is then they will then be proven to be drug-free, or not.

But in the meantime, where there is no reason to suspect that a welfare recipient is using illegal drugs, why treat them all as though they were potential drug users? We would be better served by aiding these individuals to re-enter society as the productive members that they, undoubtedly, would prefer to be. And we cannot help them by stripping them of what little dignity they now possess.