Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (11)
The simple answer: They shouldn't.
But the issue is more complex than requiring drug tests for the more than 40,000 Missouri families who receive payments from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
For example, what about the children or other dependents of a welfare-recipient head of the household who tests positive for illegal drug use? Should everyone be cut off?
Should those who test positive for drugs be cut off permanently, or just for a limited amount of time?
Who would monitor the testing and enforce whatever regulations the Missouri Legislature might impose? And are legislators who favor drug testing for welfare recipients willing to fund the cost of enforcement when cuts are being made throughout state government?
These questions need not put a halt to the effort to regulate welfare recipients and drug use, but they will need to be addressed before any meaningful piece of legislation is passed and sent to the governor for a signature.
This proposal needs careful deliberation.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
I believe that if a parent tests positive for illegal drug use that social services could step up to the plate and protect the children. These children need to be removed from this environment anyway.
This proposal is one of those we see every election year, a gimmick for electioneering. It won't pass, and those proposing it know it. First of all, lawmakers should be tested before anyone else, if history is any lesson.
Other taxpayer funded projects that should require drug tests:
*Getting a Pell Grant.
*Using a public park.
*Using public roads and stoplights.
*Using the public library.
*Taking a Cape Air subsidized flight.
*Being protected by the U.S. military.
*Getting Medicaid or Medicare.
*Attending Public School.
*Having access to the police or fire departments.
Taxpayer money is taxpayer money, right?
Legislation like this may give people the warm and fuzzies, but I seriously doubt most have really thought it through to its logical conclusion.
Well, many of the actions proposed or taken by the state legislature are all about putting on a good show.
So drug test each and every one of the welfare recipients. The number being thrown about is 40,000 families. I would assume the state will be using urine tests and will be using instant tests. At approximately $5 per test, we are talking about at least $200,000 each time the test is given. How often does a recipient have to test? People on probation or in some occupations have to test every month. So would $2.4 million be a reasonable estimate of the cost of the presumptive tests alone?
Every testing program I have ever seen allows the person being tested to appeal a positive drug screen. The screen is then sent to a laboratory which charges $40-60 per test assayed using the more sophisticated tests available. How many screens would be typical for laboratory analysis? Would 5 percent be a reasonable figure? So 5%x480,000 tests = 24,000 x $50 (lab tests) = another $480,000. Total now is about $2.8 million.
I can hear them now . . "it will be worth it if we can get drug users off welfare". But wait who is going to administer these tests? 115 counties in the state. Let's assume the state will try to do this on the cheap (we are in a depression after all) and has 1 person per county hired to do this.
If we were to assume the state would pay this person a minimum wage salary (cheap remember) plus benefits $7.25 x 40 = 170 x 52 = $8,840 + $2386 (fica+insurance etc.)=$11226.80 x 115 = $1,291,082.
So now this program will cost at least $1291,082+ $2,800,000 = $4,091,082.
This is just to do the tests. It doesn't take into account the additional enforcement costs of trying to insure that someone who is banned isnt receiving benefits through some other program.
Sounds good until you actually start figuring what this kind of grandstanding actually costs. It also is a lot of money for a program which may have no hope of accomplishing anything it is meant to do other than spend taxpayer money.
Very well stated, one4kids.
Then people will just complain about how much drug testing costs.
I think this should be placed on the ballot for taxpayers to vote on....You have to submit to a drug test for most Jobs. Why should these people get a PASS and get free money from the taxpayer Which has to take a drug test to get or Hold a job!!!!!The people on assistance are paid by TAXPAYER MONEY. I will certianly VOTE FOR THE TEST TO BE GIVEN!!!!
FriendO
The problem with passing this type of goofball legislation is that they don't know or care how much it costs. How is that being fiscally conservative?
one4,
There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative".
I have to take a drug test in order to earn the paycheck they tax. The recipients of my tax dollars ought to ALSO have to pass a drug test to be on the receiving end of my tax dollars.
That includes congressmen and senators, teachers, as well as ALL other government employees with salaries paid by taxpayers. If you can't pass a drug test you shouldn't be collecting any money from the government.
There are so many other ways to reduce government waste and fraud. This is just another thing that will be underfunded and the lack of manpower will be blamed for the COMPLETE FAILURE.