In the end, personally, I am not altogether concerned whether the answer to the simple - but tough - question whether drug testing is a valid condition precedent for welfare payments be answered. As to the costs of testing - some might say we can't afford not to test - the current way of doing things hasn't worked out too well.
But, I am thoroughly convinced that - currently - the question should, no, must be asked.
And, for a variety of reasons it must to be asked without the inquirer being labeled a racist or nut job, either.
After all, drug testing certainly seems universally unpopular. Google something about drug testing in the workplace and there are literally hundreds of articles (on one search I got something like 38 million hits) and dozens of bureaucracies (some with tax dollar support) opining, at various degrees, about the evils of drug testing.
Yet, we all know that drug testing in exchange for a paycheck does take place, today.
Why the fuss then when we ask whether current testing should be extended to the limited universe of welfare recipients?
Notwithstanding the constitutional arguments for a moment, at its essence, the question could be viewed as one of accountability (at many levels) could it not?
Well, we all know that it is much easier to yell “unconstitutional” because our very constitution was originally set up to limit government in our lives - not permit the level of intrusiveness that we all currently tolerate (sadly, that shipped has sailed). It is certainly much easier (for me and others) to consider drug testing unreasonable and hence, unconstitutional, because one can easily read all those nicely prepared arguments and studies loaded up by the ACLU, et al. Hell, they may even be correct - but IMO that is not the most important point of this discussion.
No, the ACLU does not need my help to buttress their arguments. Actually, the pendulum seems to have swung and now, it seems, that folks respectfully requesting accountability out of their government – are the ones that need the help today.
As you know, the government now controls the auto industry, mortgage lending, student loans, health-care and they are now eyeing the investment banking industry as well. There is little in our life that isn't controlled, regulated, licensed, taxed or otherwise must meet with federal government approval, much of this in just the last few years. Not to mention the state and local bureaucracies.
IMHO for far too long, we taxpayers have not asked enough tough questions nor imposed sufficient conditions on how our hard earned money has been spent by these bureaucrats - my bad.
For the most part, we taxpayers have plowed along, worked hard, did the right things, paid our fair share of taxes, scrimped and saved to put 20% or more down on our homes, paid our mortgages, paid our student loans, took care of and take care of our families – the young, the old, the aging, the terminally ill and yes, the addicted. We pissed when asked to and made little or no fuss. We see the abuse in the system and that is what frustrates us.
Quite frankly, I like many others, were asleep while the bureaucrats plundered.
So, IMHO, with respect to this issue - it is asking this tough question that is most important - raising the issue of accountability – not so much the answer. As I have said before in another comment - I have pissed, we will piss, but we are pissed (and not just in the English slang version).
But, I do think that I will savor a finger or three of Glenlivet Nadurra - aged 16 years - later tonight. Cheers.