DRUG TEST BILL'S QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED

There's little doubt taxpayers don't want to see their generosity in
the form of state assistance payments squandered on illegal drugs.

But that's what Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, claims is happening
across Ohio.

"I've got a lot of people -- from police agencies, courts and human
service agencies -- saying there are a lot of people out there
needing assistance," Schaffer said. "But some are not getting shoes
on their feet, food on their tables or shirts on their backs because
the money is being hijacked to feed drug addictions."

So Schaffer again has proposed requiring a drug test for anyone
seeking cash, medical, housing, food or energy assistance from the
state of Ohio before they can receive any help. The bill excludes
unemployment compensation from the testing requirement.

To say his idea is controversial would be an understatement.

It's wildly popular with taxpayers willing to lend a helping hand to
those truly down on their luck but tired of the government
squandering their money, especially if the funds are ending up in the
hands of illegal drug dealers. For those more concerned about helping
the needy regardless of the reason, there are legitimate fears of the
unknown implications of what Schaffer's proposal might bring if it becomes law.

Tests would cost $15 to $20 per person, although Schaffer has
neglected the fine details of where this money would come from and
how the system would be implemented.

Besides cost, our main concern deals with the finer points of how
Schaffer's proposal would impact the public assistance program and
any unintended consequences for the children involved in these situations.

Although drug tests are only required for those 18 and older, the
bill does not specify how child-only cases would be handled. Is there
a chance this proposal could hurt innocent children?

Further, what happens when the mother or father of a family tests
positive? Schaffer's bill does not address whether the information
remains private or could be used by law enforcement. Would Jobs &
Family Services be forced to get Children's Services involved more
often if they knew a parent tested positive, could not get aid and
likely not provide for his or her family? While we want to protect
children, what burden would this place on our already strapped social services?

Please don't mistake these questions as a lack of support for
Schaffer's main concept.

But they must be answered before this bill becomes law.