Pros and cons.. One big con is, if the drug testing administration gets backed up, bogged down, loses records, etc., they will still get their benefit. Second is that we will PAY for all of including the screwed up administration of the system. Seems like a good concept, but I would be afraid the only outcome would be more tax dollars spent for no good use.
Michigan tried it (random tests) some time back I hear. Got shot down by its Federal circuit court.
Not optimistic that anything but comprehensive tests would pass legal muster, and oh the bill for doing that.
which quotes a letter W.V. Delegate Sally Susman wrote to Blair:
“The notion that a person should be drug-tested — randomly, at first, you note, kindly — because he or she receives public assistance is no more grounded in logic than that a person with a public pension should be tested because he or she receives public funds,” she wrote to Blair.
To which I respond that YES, Sally, there is substantial difference between someone receiving UNEARNED assistance to which they have NO right and someone he has worked for the Government long enough to EARN a pension. The fact that she can't grasp that difference tells me a great deal about Ms. Susman....none of it complimentary.