This image has been making the rounds of social media and popped up on the walls of some of my friends today.  These services don’t have -1 or dislike buttons, but I dislike. I dislike it very much!
The post argues workers in regular jobs are tested, so welfare recipients should be, too. Well I don’t think random drug testing should be required for those who are fortunate enough to be employed, either. I had been taught that a basic, fundamental precept of our legal system has been that we are a country in which everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and protection from unnecessary search and seizure.  Our rights as free, independent citizens were to be infringed on only in the most dire, necessary circumstances. In my opinion, random drug testing should be permitted only for workers in jobs where public safety is dependent on their sobriety.  I’m not convinced that other employers have a right to test at all unless there is demonstrable reason to do so, either in terms of the nature of the position or in terms of job performance. If an employee does an impeccable job at work and is always there when he should be, what does it matter that he has lost every weekend for the past year due to drug induced blackouts. I do not believe a big brother state, let alone a big brother employer.
Let’s also remember who we’re proposing to test.

The clear target of such laws is the undeserving poor, a stereotype as old as civilization. Critics of welfare would have us believe that recipients of public assistance are just the latest in a long line of welfare recipients raised with public assistance as a way of life.  The problem is that is is a false premise.  I won’t deny such people exist, but I’ve yet to meet one in real life.  Some people do just seem allergic to work, but usually I discover there is an issue that we are not aware of, such as mental illness. Most people who receive public assistance to meet basic needs would rather they didn’t have to rely on it. Some of the people I’ve met recently who receive some form of welfare include:
recent college graduates carrying student loan debts that are still looking for good jobs but, for now, are unemployed or working for low wages or just part time
Vista or Americorps volunteers who generally work full time for a poverty level stipend that pays most expenses, but who are expected to apply for SNAP benefits for their sustenance.
People laid off because of the economic meltdown who never thought they’d be unemployed.
Grandparents taking care of grand-kids born to their teenage children.
It contains Sildenafil citrate, which helps treat levitra india price erectile brokenness (barrenness) in men, which is failure to attain or sustain an erection to perform sexual intercourse. order generic viagra Licorice root is the excellent blood purifier herbs that can help you get rid of dandruff. A poor sex drive is the single commander levitra davidfraymusic.com biggest complaint by females, and up to 40% of them complain about it. This medicament is exceptional to all men on account of satisfying your partner because this is something davidfraymusic.com on line levitra which is not supposed to be with. It is embarrassing enough for any of the groups I’ve mentioned to have to go on public assistance at all. Nothing is pleasant about it. Applications are intrusive, and process tedious, interviews embarrassing, and you have to repeat them frequently.
I expect that many of the people hardest impacted by Hurricane Sandy will need some form of public assistance for at least some time.  Luckily none of the states hardest hit by the storms have implemented this testing policy.  I would hate to have to tell them to go pee in a cup or hold out their arm so I can draw blood.  But I’d also hate to have to tell a grandmother looking after her grandchildren she has to take a drug test.
I’d also hate to administer them.  It’s only slightly less demeaning for the person being tested than it is for the person administering it, especially if you don’t think there is good reason to administer it.  While working my way through college and graduate school, I worked for a while on addiction units in psychiatric hospitals. Testing is costly and easy to thwart. I recall a patient who somehow swapped out urine with me standing in the bathroom next to him while he filled the container. I still haven’t figured out how he did it, but I should have watched more closely. Testing of all welfare recipients will have to be done with equal care if it is to be effective. Do we really want to subject everyone to that degree of scrutiny?  Unless, of course, it is a charade we intend only as a deterrent. If that’s the case, it’s an expensive, ineffective one.
Finally, what bothers me most, is that such proposals are simply cruel. The benefits provided through a social safety net are not analogous to the wages, salary or other compensation from a job. We are paid at a job for services rendered and we may receive extra compensation, additional benefits, or other rewards at a job. Sometimes we are even stakeholders in the enterprise. Most often there is some kind of employment contract. An employer has a right to fire you if you are doing something that impedes your job performance. Welfare is a safety net provided by the state, a last resort. Welfare is as much about us as a society, taking care of our own even in their most desperate circumstances. It’s part of a social contract. To cut off welfare benefits is society telling someone you don’t care if they die from starvation.
Does a positive drug test merit this? I think not. Firstly, the argument that it is positive test is proof someone is buying drugs is fallacious. True addicts sometimes keep a stash for desperate times, even when they try to quit. If they find themselves in need of support and make the mistake of appealing to other addicts, they may get offered solace in the only form addicts know how to offer. Or maybe they simply found themselves in a social situation where the substance was being passed around. But even if they did buy, beg, borrow or steal to get drugs, that is the issue to be dealt this.  I am not prepared to cut off welfare unless we are also prepared to guarantee treatment for the addiction.
Addiction is a disease, and it is strong, deadly one! It kills! On those addiction units I learned that many addicts would rather starve than lose their high. They are not thinking clearly under the influence.  I’ve seen patients practically vomit up their internal organs because they failed to heed their doctors warning that the next drink could kill them. I’ve seen a 30 something woman get an IV in her ankle because there was the only vein the nurses could find that hadn’t collapsed because of the heroin needles. Addicts and anexorics often have the same build because with euphoria inducing drugs, they don’t even know they’re hungry even as they starve!
Health Care Reform doesn’t go fully into effect until 2014 and even then I don’t know what the provisions will be for the treatment of addiction. If we can’t offer the impoverished help to get the monkey off their back, I certainly am not about to tell them that a positive drug test means they can just starve!
“Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.”