My Relpy to an ex-coworkers My Space post.

—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: Franklin Carpenter

Date: Nov 29, 2007 1:07 PM
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In
order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because
I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other
hand, have a problem with helping someone do drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to
pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if
you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it
along, though . . . Something has to change in this country — and
soon!

——————–My Reply————————–

Interesting thought. I’m not sure that I agree with that entirely but I’ll add these two thoughts.

1) Not everyone that has a job has to take urine tests. And, quite frankly I’d be a bit insulted if I was getting an outstanding job performance rating and then asked to take a drug test.
My question would be if my employer does not have a cause have to issue me a test for business reasons why should they at all? (this is in reference to random/regular drug testing not for initial employment, which is more justified, being that they don’t know you yet.) While I don’t support drug use anyway, the implied accusation/suspicion is upseting.

2) I’m not sure I like the idea of the government administering drug tests to people without probable cause; makes it seem like your guilty until proven innocent.
HOWEVER, I could see this for someone that is applying for welfare, and has prior convictions (felony or misdemeanor) for possession or what not.
Also, would these drug tests be grounds for a criminal/misdemeanor charge or just suspension of benefits? And for how long? One screw up and you can never get benefits again? or is the cooling off period a month, a year…? Putting this type of legislation in place would have to involve a careful examination of how it would impact those it is supposed to be helping. For example, a family where the father does drugs but the mother is clean and there are kids involved for instance, do you cut off the whole family because dad’s a deadbeat? Do you call CPS based on this positive test?

3) Okay 3 points then. Finally, this is why I question the validity of the government being involved in “charity” like this in the first place. If this were a private organization; they could place whatever rules they deem to be necessary for to ensure a proper disribution of benefits. With the end of the of the welfare state and the presumed reduction in taxes we (as a nation), would have more disposable income to donate to the aforementioned charities. Those charities that one believes will distribute the funds in a manner that one believes to be proper, would receive ones donations. This puts you in control of how your money is charitably distributed. But that’s the libertarian in me =)