Assuming The Worst About The Poor?
At some point a cost-benefit analysis needs to be applied to this bill before it gets consideration. About a year ago Forbes investigated this and concluded that the entire process is a "sham" that amounts to "political pandering." You can find a ream of similar conclusions by googling around, an exercise that doesn't seem likely to find a single supportive analysis of the subject. The most common beef is that it doesn't save money and adds much in the way of legal costs where it has been challenged. Time magazine calls it a "waste of taxpayer money." Do we really need this here? It would be nice if DiSanto could explain why she thinks South Dakota's experience will differ from what's happened in other states.
In the meantime, I'd like to know why others who receive public assistance aren't being required by this bill to be tested for drugs. Is there something sacred about, say, a proposed business getting public money from the Governor's Office of Economic Development that exempts the principals of that business from drug testing? There's an inherent odor of discrimination against
|Test 'Em All|
Or Don't Test Any
(photo from pintrest.com)