Testing a plan

Kansas Sen. Jeff King, R-Independence, has put forward a bill to require drug testing for recipients of cash assistance and unemployment benefits, and require employers to report to the state when a job applicant on the unemployment rolls fails a drug test.

The legislation is modeled after similar laws in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi and Florida.

Such legislation has met with varied success, drawing the ire of privacy advocates and launching legal challenges to "random" drug testing among a specific group of people. Yet there is logic to the notion that those receiving help from the community shouldn't be allowed to abuse drugs on the taxpayer's dime.

Nevertheless, the central concern should be less about drug testing and more about the legislation's intent, and that's where the debate is less than straightforward.

If the Legislature's intent is to trim government spending, such legislation likely would be a bust. The cost of administering, processing and tracking test results likely would cost more than the state might save. Andif the intent is to abruptly shuttle people off of welfare and unemployment rolls, the social costs most likely would devour any savings in state-financed programs. Despite the sins of a parent, it does a community little good to take food out of children's mouths or to make an entire family homeless.

If, as King stated, the goal is to identify the needs of drug abusers on assistance in order to get them the help they need to become successful, such a program might prove beneficial - although most certainly costly.

Without substance abuse treatment and job skills training, many drug abusers who need assistancelikely wouldstruggle much of their lives to break free from such public dependency.

Drug-testing those on welfare and unemployment isn't a straightforward endeavor. It would bear expense and would include the "expansion" of a government agency. Likewise, a punitive system designed to reduce the number of people on assistance would create costs in other areas, such as an increase in crime or a demand on local service agencies, already struggling to meet local needs.

King's plan isn't without merit, but it does require judicious consideration from lawmakers rather than the easy - and politically popular - thoughtless acceptance.

More:
Testing a plan