“If an employee must submit to a drug screen before they can be employed, why shouldn’t those on public assistance also have to submit to such drug screen?” This seems to be a common argument popping up in favor of drug screens for Oregonians who receive public assistance. It is a rational argument but not thoroughly thought out; it is based in emotion and reaction.
However, much of our politics results in very few people considering the larger picture, and reacting to emotional insinuations, like that there are many people on “public assistance” who are on drugs. The cost is presumed to “solve” the problem somehow, without any consideration for what happens to all these people we dump from the public assistance programs designed to help them.
In reading through various comments posted on this subject, including those posted at KATU’s website and a linked facebook page for the reporter (discussed further below), this theme is repeated again and again without considering the potential outcome of such a bill. Many comments declare their strong agreement with drug testing those on public assistance at KATU’s website, such as:
“Yes yes and more yes. It’s really about time.”
“just do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
“YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s about time…….”
“It is a terrific idea! I am behind this 100%!”\
These comments are clearly an emotional reaction to two emotional stimuli:
- Justified:Nearly all employees are required to submit to drug testing; therefore, those that are gainfully employed (which is the majority of the population by the way) have a sense of justification in making the unemployed and poor submit to the same testing that they have to submit to. There are many comments that express this precise thought. This fails to address whether or not employment drug screens actually prove effective to reduce drug abuse in the workplace (and many studies have demonstrated that employment drug screens do not work to reduce drug use in the work place; 70% of drug users are employed full-time according to a government study!).
- Budget Cuts:Our Oregon government is facing extreme budget deficits (ranging around 3.5-4.5 billion, depending on who you ask), unemployment and underemployment is high, so more and more people are turning to public assistance to make ends meet. With increased demand on a constrained budget, there is a rising demand for accountability from those that receive public assistance and to limit the caseload of those on public assistance. This presumes that cutting those that fail drug screens will reduce the costs to the state.
While those comments fail to actually look at the issue and weigh the pros and cons, there were some more thought-out arguments that allow for productive conversation as well. One such comment appears on KATU reporter’s facebook page – after she requested public discussion in her article on the subject, illustrating the overall argument in favor of Senate Bill 538.
Continue reading Oregon SB 538 Commentary: About time public assistance recipients drug tested?
Loading ...
Dead,I feel like it is a tool someoen in the regime came up with to make life harder on poor people…Maybe the poor people will be forced to leave these states? Also, its pbvious to me that they are targeting cannabis users. Like I said before I dont want to be part of a nation who want feed people because they smoke a plant!
I just read last night in the paper that they are trying to pass this same bill here in KY too. I also say how cna they afford it first and second it wont be worth it and in the end you will what, push already poor people into the streets? Come on, poor folks use less drugs than working people or the wealthy, why cant facts and truth ever shine through when they do this crap?
It wont pass, no way! Oh and its the Republicans here that are pushing this, again the right seems what is moral and not for everyone in this nation!