Saturday, March 28, 2009

Testing for AID (No "S")

According to a report Thursday by the Associated Press, "Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing." The main message supporters of this scheme want to send is "you don't get something for nothing."

Most of my lefty comrades will be against such laws and regulations because, they will argue, it amounts to nothing more than an invasion of privacy. While this argument indeed has merit, I could actually get behind such efforts with one small proviso -- that states apply the very same criteria to those receiving corporate welfare too!!

If the families of people needing a boost to survive will be forced to submit to random drug testing, then I think the CEOs and board members of any company receiving outright grants, guaranteed loans, property tax abatements and other forms of taxpayer-funded handouts should do the same because we don't want to give them something for nothing!

Drug abuse should be a medical/mental health issue, not a criminal one. It spans gender, age, ethnicity, race and financial standing. It's certainly not a problem of the poor only. Rich and middle class Americans abuse drugs too.

So, if these lawmakers really mean what they say, then the rule should apply across the board. If they don't want public funds used to feed drug habits, then turn off the spigot for everyone.

2 comments:

  1. I agree completely. Having worked in the field of addiction services for over 20 years - you are right. The disease knows no bounds. And the idea of 'testing across the board'? absolutely.
    Sadly, our government has found ways to rid itself of populations that are not cost effective - eugenics, if you will. And so why not now go after those with addictions who receive benefits of any kind.
    If government really believe addiction to be a disease this would not ever be considered.

    Ah, enough said.

    Gail
    peace.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the testing program would cost, per capita, at least 50% of the total money used for welfare, food stamps, etc.

    Detox programs would use the money better.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want. We may respond...or we may not. It depends on the mood and preferences of the specific author of the post. Ta-Wan generally responds in a timely manner. Trey responds some of the time and Scott rarely replies (due to limited internet access). You can be assured that all comments are read by this blog's two administrators: Ta-Wan & Trey.