I'm not a big one for reposting my own work; even though I'm not a regular blogger, I usually have something different enough to say that it isn't necessary. However, in light of the new drug testing for welfare recipients law that was recently signed by Gov. Rick Scott, I thought I'd dig this one up, as my views on the subject haven't changed one iota.
What I find even more reprehensible is the common prejudicial thinking that resulted in this law: that if you are poor and struggling, you must be an addict too. What about mandatory testing for all elected officials? What about testing for those hefty land subsidies, often handed out to the very people who bitch the most about "welfare parasites"?
Interestingly enough a February report from the Center for Law and Social Policy found that legislative proposals to drug-test TANF recipients are, in fact, based on stereotypes, and not evidence:
"Proponents often claim that drug testing will save money; however, this is based
on a false assumption that many applicants will be denied benefits. Random
testing is a costly, flawed, and inefficient way of identifying recipients in need
Another thing that keeps getting glossed over is the fact that if these parents lose their benefits, it's their kids who won't eat. "But Aleah, won't this MAKE them put their kids first, before their addiction?" Do I really have to answer that?
Overall, I wouldn't have such an issue with this if it made testing mandatory for EVERYONE: everyone elected to a government job, everyone receiving federal grants, everyone drawing unemployment, everyone getting those farming subsidies, etc. etc. etc... and WOW! Think about the money the government would save then!!!
So, here's my "repost if you agree!" response.