Pubdate: Sun, 20 Feb 2011
Source: Newark Advocate, The (OH)
Copyright: 2011 The Advocate
Contact: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/customerservice/contactus.html
Website: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2634
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

DRUG TEST BILL'S QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED

There's little doubt taxpayers don't want to see their generosity in 
the form of state assistance payments squandered on illegal drugs.

But that's what Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, claims is happening 
across Ohio.

"I've got a lot of people -- from police agencies, courts and human 
service agencies -- saying there are a lot of people out there 
needing assistance," Schaffer said. "But some are not getting shoes 
on their feet, food on their tables or shirts on their backs because 
the money is being hijacked to feed drug addictions."

So Schaffer again has proposed requiring a drug test for anyone 
seeking cash, medical, housing, food or energy assistance from the 
state of Ohio before they can receive any help. The bill excludes 
unemployment compensation from the testing requirement.

To say his idea is controversial would be an understatement.

It's wildly popular with taxpayers willing to lend a helping hand to 
those truly down on their luck but tired of the government 
squandering their money, especially if the funds are ending up in the 
hands of illegal drug dealers. For those more concerned about helping 
the needy regardless of the reason, there are legitimate fears of the 
unknown implications of what Schaffer's proposal might bring if it becomes law.

Tests would cost $15 to $20 per person, although Schaffer has 
neglected the fine details of where this money would come from and 
how the system would be implemented.

Besides cost, our main concern deals with the finer points of how 
Schaffer's proposal would impact the public assistance program and 
any unintended consequences for the children involved in these situations.

Although drug tests are only required for those 18 and older, the 
bill does not specify how child-only cases would be handled. Is there 
a chance this proposal could hurt innocent children?

Further, what happens when the mother or father of a family tests 
positive? Schaffer's bill does not address whether the information 
remains private or could be used by law enforcement. Would Jobs & 
Family Services be forced to get Children's Services involved more 
often if they knew a parent tested positive, could not get aid and 
likely not provide for his or her family? While we want to protect 
children, what burden would this place on our already strapped social services?

Please don't mistake these questions as a lack of support for 
Schaffer's main concept.

But they must be answered before this bill becomes law.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom