The Roakoke Times has one of the best editorials I have read on the proposed bill to drug test recipients of Virginia’s Temporary Aid for Needy Families Program. Perhaps soon those who get a VRS check will be expected to pass the pee test also.
Some legislators want jobless Virginians to prove they’re ‘clean.’ Maybe they should be tested, too.
The moment some poor worker’s company downsizes him out of a job, he is no longer Mr. Upstanding Citizen. In the eyes of some lawmakers, he’s a suspected drug abuser.
Indeed it’s a quick slippery slide from employed to addict. Or at least that’s what Virginians (employed Virginians anyway) could be led to believe given the flurry of bills some of their representatives are pushing in Richmond to drug test those seeking government aid.
Certain lawmakers are intoxicated with the notion that “if you are going to be supported by the people of the commonwealth, then you’re going to stay clean.” That’s how Sen. Dick Black, a Loudoun Republican, put it to the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star, which published an account of bills that tie state aid to drug tests.
Only it’s not all state aid. Just that given to those struggling the most.
Take Black, for instance. He draws a paycheck from Virginia taxpayers. Shouldn’t the commonwealth also require him to first prove his cleanliness?
How about government contractors or college students seeking financial aid? Should we not suspect anyone dependent on the commonwealth of using the taxpayers’ hard-earned money on illegal substances?
What makes the unemployed more unclean?
The idea of drug testing the unemployed builds on an effort to test those turning to public assistance. The drug-user stereotype is assigned to those perceived as able-bodied workers choosing to be idle. It’s a one-size-fits-all judgment that fails to look at why someone seeks aid or what she might be doing to rise above her circumstances (pursuing an education, job training, juggling low-wage work).
There’s something repugnant in suspecting our neighbors of drug use simply because they’re out of work.
And yet those who harbor such cynical attitudes aren’t ashamed. They pretend they are looking out for the taxpayers’ money, making sure it isn’t supporting addicts. Some even suggest that their motives are altruistic. Del.Margaret Ransone, the Westmoreland Republican who wants unemployed workers to pay for the test and bring proof of their cleanliness when filing a benefits claim, told the Fredericksburg newspaper the test is also a “resume builder” that certifies they’re drug-free.
If the threshold to cashing a commonwealth check is certifying the recipient is drug-free, then test everyone — lawmakers included.
Good, and I think the Governor should have to take a pee test before his state can receive federal aid money. You know, goose and gander!
bwaaahahahaha
You might be on to something, Starry. Who ever thought this one up is nothing more than a control freak.
Lets take it from the flip side. I do not do illegal drugs. If I needed welfare money, I do not have a problem taking a drug test. If we are subsidizing a person’s income/housing/healthcare, we should be able to put a few restrictions around it. If a person is a drug abuser, they are probably not fit for employment – they should be tested, and if found dependent on a drug, they should be enrolled in a program to get off the dependence, or kicked off of welfare. If we allow them to continue to receive benefits, while not helping them, they will remain on welfare.
Same with unemployment – there are a very many people that are unemployed, and doing nothing about upping their skill level to gain employment, or really looking for a job or not taking a job that is below there perceived skill level. I have taken a lower level position in the past, in order to change employers, and moved back up the ladder in the new organization, nothing wrong with it, other than people’s own perception.
Able-bodied, productive working people have to take drug tests all the time, as a condition of employment. Why not the nonworking who are benefitting from the working folks’ hard-earned money?
Usually only in jobs where safety is an issue. ie transportation related jobs @ Emma
Once again it sounds like a sin of sorts to not be working. People who lose their jobs are not necessarily the morally defective.
I have immediate relative who have collected unemployment and I am offended that just because you lose your job, you are seen as possible drug abuser. How insulting! For many it is very hard to acccept unemployment, but to then pour salt into the wound, only a jerk who has never been on unemployment would suggest passing such a law.
Moon, if you imply that those who are unemployed are “defective” then suddenly those 1% are doing their part by being “job creators” . You see it must be the fault of those worthless bums collecting unemployment, they are just lazy drug abusers and THAT is why they don’t have jobs!
Here’s my problem with having drug tests for all these people.
Who’s going to pay for all these drug tests? Who is going to administer these drug tests? How often do you have the drug test? Who’s going to monitor you while you “go in the cup” to make sure its honest?
This type of bill is ludicrous. It sounds good but its unworkable in the scale that’s needed.
Earth, stop spinning backwards. I agree with Cargo. It is a stupid bill and targets the wrong people. We all knoew that somewhere out there someone doing drugs who is getting money from the state. We also know there is someone out there scamming. Drug testing won’t stop it and it is an expensive program to operate.
Pie in the sky. Kids aren’t taken away for drug use. It would ultimately be someone’s kids who were hurt. There aren’t enough foster homes to go around. Many I wouldn’t put my dog in.
Cargo is right–the cost of conducting the tests will far exceed an possible “savings”.
P.S. Military personnel have been taking drug tests for years. And also federal employees. No big deal, provided you are clean.
Do all federal employees have to take drug tests?
@Moon-howler
Yes.
I also take em as a contractor to the govt. Under conditions of my employment I can be tested at any time. I know the green-suiters I work with can be told to do so at any time while whomever watches them do it.
I agree that people that collect a public check (including employees, legislators, etc) should have to be screened but I bristle at the cost of doing so.
It would be much simplier and more humane to simply get rid of all government assistance to the needy.
We won’t have to worry about people being ‘offended’ such as in #6.
@marin, I think it is critical in areas of safety. I think for people not involved with safety issues, it is a waste of money. I dont mind people thinking they can be tested but routinely? nah.