No-Brainer, Eh?

A new Oklahoma representative wants people who receive state assistance to take drug tests in order to get their aid.

Rep. John Bennett says in the press release that he "realize(s) there will be legal challenges to this idea," but says that "from a common-sense perspective, it's a no-brainer." Another way of saying "no-brain" is "brainless," so I am happy to agree with Rep. Bennett here. Let's set aside the minute chance that there is a court outside of Teheran that would OK this kind of law, or that by some malignant misalignment of the stars it passes and survives legal challenges, making Oklahoma the state that makes you pee in a cup to feed your kids. The impressively low level of neuron functioning shows forth abundantly:

1) Rep. Bennett's law seems to overlook an important item in folks' choices to chemically damage their ability to function, namely, booze. Since only illegal drugs would get you suspended from your state aid, you can get yourself as sloshed as you want and still cash your checks made up partly of my money. The constituents on whose behalf Rep. Bennett says he filed this bill are apparently not all that concerned when people get drunk "on our dime."

2) Who all has to be tested? Mom? Dad? Heck, let's make it a family affair! The text of the bill, available here (the link opens a Rich-Text Format [rtf] document), includes Section 1-F-3: "Testing for children under the age of twelve (12) may be provided by the child’s primary care physician at the discretion of the applicant." So when Junior has to pee in a cup in order to get state aid, he can do it at the family doctor's office instead of wherever the tests are set up to be performed. The fact that Junior will have to pee in a cup is something the tough-talking Rep. Bennett left out of his square-jawed law-and-order press release. Since there's no minimum age listed in the bill, perhaps it should be amended to include allowing the applicant to submit used diapers as samples in case Junior is not yet able to stand up to pee in the cup.

3) Let's talk money. Rep. Bennett says that the cost of a test will be deducted from the first payment given to applicants who pass. So who will pay for the costs of those who fail the test? Let me look in the mirror -- oh, I see who. Rep. Bennett's campaign website, under the issues section, says he is against excessive government spending, noting that we will be "a billion dollars in the hole starting the next legislative session in Oklahoma." Will the creation of a new layer of state bureaucracy add or subtract from that billion dollars? After all, someone's going to have to keep records of the tests, handle the appeals about supposed false positives, notify aid recipients that their testing date is coming up, etc., and I doubt they'll do any of those things for free.

And finally, 4) -- although there are a whole lot more things wrong with this law, you should get to have some fun of your own picking it apart -- the rationale behind Rep. Bennett's law is that the taxpayers of Oklahoma should know that the people to whom their money is given are drug-free. I don't disagree, which is why, unless he turns down his paycheck, offices out of his car and parks on the meters instead of the reserved lot at the Capitol, Rep. Bennett should volunteer himself, his wife and his four kids for drug testing forthwith.