Probably; after all, they're poor

     Humanity is increasingly becoming a civilization that tries to control complex social patterns so the race progresses. We try to find ways to intentionally encourage desirable traits and discourage undesirable traits. In essence, now that we've adopted the Darwinian vision of natural evolution, we seek to control our own evolution to ensure our future existence.
     The primary way to understand large-scale traits and patterns is through statistical analysis. While often useful, this technique is fundamentally at odds with the rights of the individual as enshrined, for example, in the Bill of Rights.
     That is why, for at least the past couple of years, American legislators and judges have been fumbling with the vague language employed in our Fourth Amendment (the prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures).
     Let's look at an example in the news right now.
     In 2010, Governor of Florida Rick Scott introduced state legislation that would require those seeking welfare (under the federal program TANF, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) to submit to a drug test. Applicants must pay for the $30 screening but are reimbursed afterward, provided they don't fail. This bill was signed into law in June 2011.
     Scott said that it was unfair for taxpayers to support the addictions of drug users; conversely, welfare can now act as an incentive to not use drugs.
     Shortly after Scott signed the bill, a delegation of Democratic representatives attacked the new legislation, calling it "downright unconstitutional." Rep. Alcee Hastings argued that the bill could set a precedent to require drug testings for all federal assistance programs, from Medicaid to education to emergency relief.
     Similar legislation in Michigan was overturned in a federal court in 2003. Moreover, in 1998 a pilot project in Jacksonville, Fl., tested almost 9000 applicants and found that less than 4% failed the test. Given that each test costs around $50 and applicants are awarded, on average, $250 per month, the program would be lucky to pay for itself.
     Besides the financial cost of the program, what about human rights? The Fourth Amendment states:
     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.
     "Probable cause" is a term that has been debated, but most agree that a warrant must be obtained as a result of information submitted by a law enforcement officer who has sworn an Affidavit. (A minority view suggests that "probable cause" means the same thing as "reasonable cause" and no evidence need be submitted or sworn in.)
     On Thursday The Daily Show ran a special segment that highlighted the sheer prejudice and hypocrisy of Scott's program. The stereotype is that, as Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi put it so well, "The poor love drugs," which is actually false. (I wonder if this suggests that there is, in fact, "class warfare" raging in America.) The inconsistent behavior is that state dollars spent on welfare deserve the attention of drug screening - but what about state and federal employees, and social service programs whose benefits are not reaped primarily be the poor? A dollar is a dollar, and if Rep. Scott wishes to make sure no taxpayer money is rerouted to fund destructive and addictive habits, everyone who receives state monies should be required to submit to similar screening.
     Of course, that's not the case, and that's why the bill was rightly overturned. Preliminary results show that 2.5% of applicants tested positive for drug use and 2% declined to take the test, whereas around 6% of Americans use drugs. (Earlier research revealed that government-assisted families were 50% more likely to report drug use than families receiving no assistance.) Scott is appealing the decision and I'm guessing that the case will end up in the Supreme Court, which means it will finally get the attention it deserves.
     In the meantime, Pennsylvania is advancing similar legislation - but in this case, drug testing is only required of felons with a drug-related conviction in the past five years. Does this constitute "probable cause"? In terms of statistical likelihood, absolutely. People with a history of drug abuse are more likely to return to drugs - that correlation is practically uncontested.
     But how likely? Is over 50% enough? What constitutes "probable"? Am I as an individual ready to be defined legally by the normative behavior of my supposed social class? I don't think I am. Regardless of what people like me have done, I want to be judged according to my own behavior. And if there's not much to go on, give me the benefit of the doubt.
     Ironically, I'm siding with the Democrats (who normally champion social engineering) against the Republicans (who normally champion the rights of the individual). The reason for this reversal, I suggest, may be because Republicans treat poor people as an isolated group and not as individuals. But what do I know?
     So, there are three questions to ponder:
     1. Does statistical probability count as probable cause? Read these two articles (1) (2) if interested. (This is the same problem in Arizona with respect to identifying "likely suspects" of illegal immigration).
     2. Are poor people really more likely to use drugs? My very brief online research, linked earlier in this article, turned up conflicting results.
     3. Is class warfare a myth or a reality? This is a pretty polarized issue right now so it's probably best just to mull it over and not post on it.
     You're welcome to share your thoughts and opinions - I'd like to hear them!