What’s Good for the Goose …
State Rep. Ellen Brandom of Sikeston has proposed for the third time in as many years that welfare recipients be tested for illegal drug use, and the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch thinks this is such a good idea that it should be extended even further:
There’s a logic to this, of course. Many employers conduct drug screenings as a routine matter. And Ms. Brandom has noted that taxpayers object to subsidizing drug use. No doubt they do.
But if Ms. Brandom is intent on protecting taxpayers, why just go after poor folks? And why screen only for drugs?
Lawmakers, like TANF recipients, also feed at the public trough, and plenty look as though they don’t lead the healthiest lifestyles. Given their grueling schedules and the rich food that lobbyists feed them, it’s no wonder.
This can drive up the cost of public employee health insurance. So why not, as a matter of routine, assess senators’ and state representatives’ body mass index and screen them for blood cholesterol levels?
Those found not to be taking care of themselves shouldn’t be automatically punished. But they shouldn’t be a burden on taxpayers either. Those found to have LDL (“bad”) cholesterol of, say, 200 or more, should be given a second chance before the public subsidy for their health insurance is suspended. Maybe free oatmeal, too.
What’s more, barely a year goes by without a lawmaker being involved in an alcohol-related driving offense. If welfare recipients can be cut off from public benefits for substance abuse, what about top state officials?
Read the whole thing here. What a world it would be if politicians were actually constrained by the rules they force on the rest of us.





I hope that you were merely being sarcastic, John. Even separate from the broader fact that the drug war is a misguided, wasteful, failed policy, mandatory drug testing ignores the constitutional problems raised by any regulation that permits the government to intrude into one’s privacy without first having any probable cause. If the people are, in fact, concerned about the possibility that their elected officials are using drugs, they can tell those for whom they are eligible to vote that they will refuse to vote for any candidate unless they submit to a drug test – but any law or regulation making drug tests mandatory is a terrible idea.
Comment by Dave Roland — February 2, 2010 @ 7:02 p.m.
Seemed pretty clearly satirical to me — but based on a kernel of truth, as good satire usually is. If politicians are subjected to the worst of the policies they impose on the rest of us, they may see more clearly how bad those policies are. That’s not an argument in favor of bad policy, though.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 2, 2010 @ 8:08 p.m.
Yeah, my take on it is essentially the same as Eric’s. I don’t think it was a serious idea, but if politician’s want to run everyone’s personal lives, they should be held to the same–if not higher–standard.
Comment by John Payne — February 2, 2010 @ 9:18 p.m.
The drug tests would only be mandatory if you want welfare.
Comment by vroman — February 10, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.