To Test or Not to Test (posted for AnnaK)

In states like Florida, citizens are required to take a drug test to determine their eligibility towards receiving welfare. If they fail they’re denied by welfare for a year, until they take another test. This policy is presented to prevent people like druggies to take advantage of the social welfare system and intake the drugs provided by the government. This idea is favored in many other states in America, and is considered being adopted by them. The welfare program isn’t the only policy that requires citizens to take a drug test before they can receive help from the government. According to Times, “an Ohio state senator, Tim Grendell, recently said he plans to introduce a bill to require the unemployed to take a drug test before they receive unemployment benefits,” for the same purpose. Authorities who are prone to making this policy legal tend to argue that there’s a large unit of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. But several studies have found no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. This kind of limiting law towards drug-testing is often touted as a tactic of saving tax dollars, or cutting down government expense. But the facts stated otherwise, in a study in Idaho recently, it is found that the cost for drug-testing exceeds any money saved. Despite the contradictory characteristics people hold if they agree with the policy, another question should be raised. Is this kind of policy morally correct or not?

This issue ultimately boils down to whether it is ethical to deny all just because some have problematic records. What if the unemployed drug users have desires to receive help yet he’s denied by the government’s systematic program? If they’ve been denied to receive help does it mean that they’re just let alone to live and die? Another ethical issue towards this program is personal privacy. This policy itself violates the Fourth Amendment right to what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug searching is greatly limited in the constitution. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the drug testing was an unreasonable research. The state can impose drug test in exceptional cases, when there is a public safety need for them (e.g. if they were to ask for a job as a bus or train operator.)

This issue can also boil down to how the government should control a generalized situation: whether this druggie’s actions apply to other druggie’s action or not. Of course, it would take too much effort and time if the government applies a different document for every single case they receive. This kind of dilemma can be easily related to our school lives, when the teacher punishes the whole class for something only certain people did. The ones who actually did the wrongdoings would definitely get punished for what he had done and also dragging others along with him, but the innocents would probably end up inheriting a negative attitude towards the authority which can possibly lead to worse consequences.