Over the last few days, I’ve seen variations of the following status on Facebook. Such-and-such a state just passed a law requiring drug testing for all welfare recipients. Woohoo!! Make this your status if you agree. Six months ago, when I first started seeing this post, I angrily, vocally dissented, but now I’m ambivalent. I should start off by saying that I’m not on welfare, and I don’t do drugs. Whether or not this law impacts me is not the point. The issue I’m really trying to tackle is whether or not it’s okay to implement this type of law, and as I start this post, I’m really not sure what my answer will be at the end.
As I said a moment ago, I have long been against drug testing, for a couple of reasons. My first issue with drug testing isn’t against the testing per se, it’s a fundamental belief that the government should not be able to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. If women are allowed to have an abortion, which is GUARANTEED to end a life, then I should be able to smoke a joint. Whether or not I CHOOSE to ingest THC is not the point… I should have the RIGHT. The second reason I have a problem with drug testing is that everyone is presumed to be a drug user, and people are required to submit a sample to PROVE that they do NOT break the law. This flies directly in the face of “innocent until proven guilty.” The fact that my employer could require me to pee in a bottle is a mere technicality, and the fact that we allow a variation of innocent until proven guilty because it’s a civil issue, not a criminal one, is unconscionable.
At the same time though, we as a nation are starting to finally realize that we need to change our government’s spending habits. Requiring people on public assistance to abstain from drug use is a reasonable request at face value. In fact, cutting public assistance to anyone convicted of breaking a law is reasonable at face value. But how far do we carry our reasonable thought process? Do we revoke welfare checks for someone convicted of jaywalking or someone who receives a parking ticket? By the same token, alcohol is legal, but excessive alcohol consumption is correlated with poverty, joblessness and so forth. Should we prohibit welfare recipients from consuming alcohol? How do we handle the medicinal use of cannabis in states such as California, where it’s legal?
If we are going to require drug testing for welfare recipients, then why stop there? Would it not be reasonable to expand this testing to people who receive ANY government benefits? What about the low-income working family who receives food stamps? Yeah, they’re working, but they could theoretically trade their food stamps for drugs. What about Social Security recipients? Yeah, I know they paid in to Social Security, but let’s face it; they’re receiving FAR more than they paid in, so they’re eligible for drug testing too. And what about the disabled war veteran? Yeah, he served his country, but now that he’s getting disability, he should have to pee in a bottle like everyone else.
The fact of the matter is, ALL of these seem like reasonable requirements. After all, my money is more important than your personal liberty. Why should I spend my hard-earned tax dollars to support anyone who does drugs? In fact, why should my tax dollars be spent on alcohol? It seems VERY reasonable to me that anyone on the government dole should be required to stay clean and sober… or lose their benefits. And what the heck… we should extend this to kids as well. Let’s make our kids submit to random drug testing. Because after all, if my kid doesn’t see that food is more important than drugs, then my KID should no longer be eligible for public assistance either!
Ohhhhh… but wait. I like beer! What will happen to ME if this is enacted? Sure, I can have a beer now, but what about if I lose my job? What about when I retire? Oh… then I’ll have to give something up. And let’s face it, my money is more important than you are, but my freedom is important than your money! Oh wait! Now I have a philosophical issue… because if I feel that way, then chances are most everyone else does as well. This means that I have a choice to make… which is more important in general… personal liberty, or money? Cash or freedom? I, for one, am going to choose freedom.
Like I said, I really didn’t know where I would end up as I started this blog post. I guess I know. I would really like to know who agrees with me, and who disagrees. So, let me ask a few questions of you, my readers…
-Should welfare recipients be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should the dependents of welfare recipients be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should those on social security be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should those on disability be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should any of the above groups be required to abstain from alcohol? Tobacco? If so, which groups?
-Should any of the above groups lose benefits for being convicted of a crime? If so, where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'll be commenting on this over the weekend, Evan, when I have a few minutes to sit in the quiet. This is one of my personal soapbox issues.
I'm ambivalent myself. On the one hand it's a gross invasion of privacy...but on the other hand, I wouldn't want taxpayer money going to support someone's crack habit.
My solution is simple: Forget drug testing, start paying welfare in vouchers ONLY and start severely punishing business who accept food stamps for things like cigarettes and booze.
Basically, welfare should be there to pay for the necessities like housing and food.
That way, there's no invasion of privacy and the taxpayer knows their money is being spent on the necessities it's meant for.
It also has the added benefit of making welfare far less attractive
Still waiting to hear from Sunny :)
Paul, I like the voucher idea.
Post a Comment