I normally don't pay a much attention to things I read on Facebook. My wife and son set me up a Facebook page about 10 years ago and it took me about five years to ever open it up. I've never posted anything on Facebook. I've responded a few times with happy birthday wishes and maybe poking fun at Auburn fans like Eddie Hammond, Randy Murph and David Jennings, but nothing more.
I look through the posts that show up on my page for story ideas. Maybe there's an event going on that I don't know about and want to publicize in the Tri-City Ledger.
I came across something the other day that caught my attention. I don't remember it exactly but the jest of the post was dealing with drug testing. In a nutshell it said why are people getting government supplemental money or free government services not subject to drug tests but most people out in the workforce paying the taxes to support those programs are?
My bet is if you work at a paper mill you are subject to have a random drug test. If you work in law enforcement you are subject to a random drug test. Most people working in manufacturing jobs are subject to a drug test. In some cases, if you fail one, you lose your job.
President Trump recently announced he wants mandatory drug testing for certain people receiving food stamps. I've read where there are proposals to drug test people living in government-subsidized housing or are on Medicaid. I read where some states want to drug test people who receive WIC vouchers. Basically, if you are receiving government aid you need to pass a drug test to continue receiving that aid.
Proponents of such testing are saying if they can afford to buy drugs and alcohol they should be able to afford food, housing and health costs. Opponents of the testing say it will eventually hurt innocent children who are not responsible for their parents' drug activities.
I've listened on public radio where some opponents say the cost of the drug testing will far outweigh any saving of tax dollars. Another chimed in and said if you want government subsidies you should have to pay for the test yourself.
I bring this up now because it's been in the news recently and most people just completed filing their tax returns. Some got some money back while others had to pay but a good portion of the money we pay in federal taxes goes to support these welfare programs.
Just recently, Scott Dawson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor in Alabama, said he wants to see 'extensive mandatory' drug testing in Alabama schools for all students who voluntarily participate in extracurricular activities.
The best definition I found for extracurricular activities is things that fall outside of the normal curriculum of schools.
Dawson said his plan is not to hurt people but to save lives due to the increasing drug epidemic that is crippling and killing so many young people.
On the surface you'd think he was talking about people participating in sports being forced to have mandatory drug testing. But I wonder whether students involved in organizations like the Lions Club's Leo program or Kiwanis' Key Club would fall under that rule. Would students who join the Science Club, Math Club, Spanish Club or Science Club have to be drug tested if those clubs were extracurricular and not part of the normal curriculum at schools that teach math, Spanish or science. Does it include band?
What about the kid who's not involved in extracurricular activities. Is he less likely to get addicted to opioids, meth, crack or spice than the kid who plays football?
“It is because I'm tired of drug addiction holding a generation hostage,” is what Dawson said to support his plan for the drug testing.
If it's about saving lives, why single out those involved in extracurricular activities? Why not test all students?
Much like the problem that will be created when we start cutting off government aid due to failed drug tests, what are we going to do with the students who fail? For the guy playing football, you simply take his jersey away. If the math student fails a test, will we take away his text book?
If Dawson and anybody else running for governor or for the Legislature really want to make an impact to save lives, they'd find ways to drastically increase the funding of our juvenile justice system and give local communities more resources to stop small problems before they become major issues. Turning around the lives of young people is the best way to address most of the problems we have in this country.
