Friday, April 12, 2013

Pissing Our Money Away?

I ran across an article from one of my classmates Doug Warzon that talks a little about screening welfare applicants for drug use, you can check out the full article here. Contrary to the title of my post I found myself agreeing with Doug - mostly - on the issue presented. I believe in helping people but only as far as they help themselves. Why would I want my hard earned tax dollars to go towards taking care of someone under the influence of drugs or someone that could care less about helping themselves? As far as that goes I believe that it is an excellent idea to screen welfare applicants with drug tests. Now, here is what I don't agree with; the numbers. I have been following the welfare drug screening legislation around the country for quite some time now and I can tell you that even though the idea is a really good one, the execution is below poor. One of the main reasons that it doesn't really matter if we test them or not is the cost; it doesn't save us (taxpayers) a single dime to see these people drug tested.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating to just keep the system the way it is and let people keep getting their welfare without any sort of repercussions if they are drug users, but maybe we should find a way to create a better system. There is a thing called "lobbying" and I am sure you have all heard of it, so it should come as no surprise that there are drug testing companies that lobby our government and more specifically our legislatures. What better way to satisfy the general publics appetite for welfare reform (with drug screening) and to receive a great big campaign contribution than to pass a law that requires drug screening for welfare applicants; oh and by the way, Company X who provided my campaign contribution will also be the company we use for the drug test. This is exactly the problem that I am talking about and a solution needs to be found if we are to see any positive results.

The last problem with this system is the money; sure, the applicants are required to pay for their tests which saves the state a lot of money and gets rid of the drug addicts right? Wrong, as the laws now stand, an applicant that is found to have no intoxicants is refunded the cost of the drug test by the state which it was administered, coming directly out of our pockets. So with such a broken system it is no wonder that the ACLU is getting involved and suing under infringement of our Fourth Amendment rights but I digress. I want to stop here and say that on the whole I do agree with Doug on his post, it was a great piece and we should find a way to fix the system, screen for drug users, and spend less money. Will this ever happen? I don't know but I can tell you for now until we fix the broken system, these forays into experimental legislation is the same as flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.

1 comment:

The State of Tejas said...

The post that Uncle Sam's Lone Star, wrote on the ban of texting was very well written, and very informative. I have to agree with the author when it comes to, why isn't Perry passing the ban on texting and driving? I admit, I have done it in the past, but I have stopped because I have two little ones in the car, and don't want to put their lives in danger. But, others are putting us in the same danger. A text can wait, it is not the important. Nothing is worth losing a persons life. I don't like having my life or my children's life in someone else hands while they look down to say "LOL." We as people should do what we can to make the ban happen, and enforce the laws, and make the punishment a ridiculous amount of money or community service or something so people will stop the texting and driving.