|
Ron Jackson's Perspective
The Sunday Journal -
Think
Kankakee, Illinois
January 20, 2008
Test for drugs
before issuing
welfare checks |
 |
|
Idea starts with e-mail
Generally, when I receive stuff by e-mail it goes directly to the
recycle bin. But this particular e-mail made me think. The
following was forwarded to me by a friend, but the author is
unknown.
“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 sitting on their BUTT, doing 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
pass it along, though. … Something has to change in this country –
and soon!”
As interesting as this is, and although I fully agree with the
position, I didn’t forward the e-mail to 15 people because it didn’t
say I would have bad luck for 17 years or that my nonexistent pet
would die in three hours. But the unknown author, who probably had
to remain anonymous to save his job, does make a very convincing
argument. If drug testing is necessary to earn a paycheck, it
should be necessary to receive one.
The author who could be from any state and work for almost any
employer, private or public, speaks for every law-abiding,
hard-working, income-earning, taxpaying citizen. Most employers
require a pre-employment drug test and many also have random testing clauses as a condition of
employment. Just as the e-mail stated, you have to take a drug test
to be able to earn a paycheck. So, why not require public aid
recipients to take a drug test to receive a free check and health
benefits?
The writer made it very clear he or she was not opposed to
helping fellow Americans in need, but was annoyed that the
individuals who have the initiative and desire to work to contribute
to the national economy is put to a greater scrutiny than ones who
merely reap benefits. Understandably, it is a little troubling that
those receiving public assistance can’t be forced to work, and they
aren’t mandated to be drug free.
We could even take the drug testing issue a bit further. To
register to vote, you must submit a urine sample. To run for
political office you must secure a predetermined number of
signatures of registered voters who passed a drug test and you must
do a drop, and do a subsequent drop before every primary. How about
requiring candidates to submit a urine sample after making stupid
comments during debates? If the comment by presidential candidate
Dennis Kucinich that he believes in UFOs didn’t warrant a drug test, nothing should.
It’s not like anyone is suggesting welfare recipients must
study a 600-page manual before taking a drug test. The drug test is
one of the easiest tests to take because no study is involved.
There is no pressure to get an “A” since it’s a pass/fail grading
system.
The process to earn a paycheck is similar to getting a free
check. Both require completion of an application followed by an
interview. Upon mutual agreement, more times than not, the
potential wage earner must take and pass a drug test before working
for his or her check and contributing to the government. Upon
approval, the potential public aid recipient merely begins receiving
benefits.
Drug testing in the workplace came about as a safety issue.
Working around dangerous equipment, flying an airplane, or
performing surgery while mentally impaired could lead to personal
injury or death. Because we are such a litigious society, drug
testing became an even greater necessity in every industry. If
someone fell on a business property and the business had not drug
tested the custodian, there could be dire consequences. Some slick
lawyer would find a way to show the employer’s failure to drug test
the employee was the direct cause of his drunken client’s fall
resulting in a swollen big toe that turned into a life-threatening
injury.
Since most public aid recipients are responsible for children,
shouldn’t drug testing be necessary to ensure the safety of those
children?
In a nutshell, to earn a check you have to be drug free; to get
a free check you can be drug-test free. Something is not right with
this system, and not one of the current campaigning “agents of
change” will address this issue. |
|
|
Thanks for stopping by! |
|
|
Home
| About | What's New |
Books | Columns |
Archives |
Seminars | Search |
Contact |
|
|
|
|
