|
|
"Yes!" is the answer of the purists, including those of us who have both a distaste for the use of illegal drugs - and a distaste for welfare.
But on a practical basis, changing current law to require such tests is probably politically impossible, and so dangerously overbroad that it could well violate state and federal proscriptions against unreasonable searches. An extensive discussion last week with state Rep. Matt Gabler pointed out the possibilities, and pitfalls, of this approach.
A conclusion: Focus on the art of the possible, and the process of building consensus.
Crack cocaine. Crystal meth.
We can't think of one reason why any sane person would defend the use of these killer, crime-inducing, personhood-destroying, irresistibly addictive substances.
We do not, however, know the effectiveness, or the costs, of current tests for uses of these substances.
If, however, tests are in fact available that are minimally intrusive (blood sample, saliva sample, etc.), overwhelmingly accurate (95 percent or better and, in the doubtful area, more prone to false negatives than to false positives), and cost-effective, we could support a law that would require adult recipients of public welfare money, public disability income, or similar taxpayer-funded "dole" programs to submit to such testing, perhaps on a regular basis, perhaps randomly.
Penalties ought to be non-draconian, perhaps a suspension of payments for some months, and notification of local police, but nonadmissibility by themselves as evidence of criminal conduct.
The goal here is to encourage responsibility and discourage conduct that is dangerous to the users and to the rest of us.
Let's not do "drug testing." That's overbroad, overblown and overkill.
Instead, let's agree on what is killing us, is illegal, is quantifiable and cost-effective. Then, just as we impose limits with respect to age, income, and behavior (seek a job, fill out forms, produce tax forms, etc.), let's move to test welfare recipients to confirm that they are, in fact, avoiding using our money to subsidize their addictions that are brutally dangerous to themselves, their families - and to us.
Why?
The most basic reason is, "It's our money, not their money. Those who have the gold, make the rules."
We think this one makes sense.
- Denny Bonavita
