BLOGROLL

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Staff

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the June 18 My View ("Hatch's drug-testing proposal has flaws" by Kurt Manwaring) criticizing my amendment that would require passage of a drug test for all new applicants for welfare and unemployment insurance. Although I agree with the author's assessment that "Hatch is right on the money when he says that federal dollars should not be used to support substance abuse," I found no prescriptive solutions or ideas in his article that would help Utah assistance recipients, and their children, who suffer from drug abuse problems in their families.

The writer acknowledges that drug abuse and addiction are serious problems that often lead to criminal activity and may need to be managed with outside treatment options, but then takes my amendment to task for policies that the author admits will lead to more individuals seeking treatment. Isn't that a good thing? Don't we have to first identify and quantify problems before we can solve them? Policy makers need to know where problems are before we can allocate precious resources to solve them. Knowing who has a drug problem is the first step in getting them treatment and adequately funding treatment programs to save individuals and families.

The writer concludes that my amendment will not deter substance abuse and will lead to increased crime, but offers no valid reasons for this conclusion. In fact, reason tells you that just the opposite will happen. If assistance recipients know the only way they can access federal and state assistance is through a drug test, certainly there will be a good proportion of the population who will self-identify their problem and seek treatment options.

The cost arguments made in the op-ed are addressed in the body of the amendment by requiring a reduction in the Department of Health and Human Services discretionary funding by the amount needed to administer the drug test and provide follow up treatment, if necessary. I contend that while there might be some upfront costs to my amendment, the long-term savings in identifying and treating individuals suffering from addiction will more than offset these costs.

I agree with the countless Utahns who have contacted me to say we should not be giving taxpayer-funded assistance to individuals who may use these funds to further their addiction. My amendment will provide the opportunity for intervention and treatment for some cases that, if left unattended, could lead to criminal activity and child neglect.

According to analysis provided by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), drug and alcohol abuse and addiction are implicated in the crimes and incarceration of 80 percent of the 1.7 million men and women behind bars in America. CASA estimates that if we were able to successfully treat and train only 10 percent of these individuals, the nation would receive an economic benefit of more than $8 billion for each year these individuals remain employed and drug and crime free.

CASA also estimates that of the $10.6 billion states spent on child welfare programs, at least 74.5 percent. or $7.9 billion, is caused or exacerbated by substance abuse and addiction.

With these types of figures on the rise, we simply cannot afford to do nothing.

My amendment is a modest first step in addressing this larger problem. Rather than try to poke holes in the proposal, we should be working together to reduce the number of lives ruined by drugs.