Mandatory drug testing

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Blog sort of by request.

I was recently asked to defend my position on mandatory substance abuse testing for people who receive tax-payer supplied living assistance.

Now in 23 states!

To simplify - If you get food stamps, you should be tested periodically for drugs. This applies to the other social welfare programs as well.


It's my opinion that if I am forced to support you, then you will adhere to the decorum rules I lay down. In other words if I have to pay to keep you alive, you are going to behave the way I tell you to.

Someone is going to now say I'm not being forced to support people who get public assistance. These people do not understand taxes. I pay taxes because I have to. The government takes the money from me. The government in turn uses part of this to support people who cannot or will not support themselves.

Give responsibly.

I am forced, against my will in many cases, to support these people.

When I give to charity, I make sure my money will be used as I want it used. If the person or group uses the money for things I don't agree with, I don't contribute again.

A homeless shelter in a neighboring county has a substance abuse policy. If you live there, you adhere to the rules. Violate the rules (show up drunk), you are kicked out. I just don't have a problem with that.

Why should forced charity (taxes) be any different?

The people whom wanted me to explain my views pointed out other venues which tax dollars support. Should people who use these things be tested? Roads, they point out, are built with tax dollars.

Indeed. Dunno about where you live, but in Georgia a driver's license carries with it the requirement to be checked for substance abuse if a law enforcement officer suspects the driver is under the influence. Mandatory testing, in other words.

What about other tax-supported endeavors? I favor drug testings for teachers and student-athletes. I favor testing for government employees.

Once you get past the current spending on social services and the military at the federal level, there's very little left in government spending which I support. At the state level, I support public safety, education and very little else.

Cut the programs I object to and my drug testing requirements are also cut.

My opinion on drugs is on record. The fact remains recreation drug use is illegal. The current president intends to keep it that way, in case you wondered. His remarks from Latin America say he opposes legalization.

Furthermore, Georgia has a program called Drugs Don't Work. Companies that sign up for this program get a sharp discount on their workman's comp insurance premiums. At the same time, these companies see increased worker productivity, decreased absenteeism and increased profits, well above the cost of the program.

But to sum this all up into one thought: I support substance abuse testing for people who benefit from my tax dollars. I should have the right to decide how my tax dollars are spent. If you object to that, quit taking my money.