Trending news; Ebola Cogent & Fallacious #4

I decided to look on twitter to find what was trending and write about that.

This week Shepard Smith made the twitter trend.  In case you have been hiding under a rock, and may have missed this story in the last few days, you can catch up here.

The gist of this commentary is that the media is responsible for launching the Ebola outbreak into apocalyptic standing.  He encourages Americans to not take the bait.  He reassures his listeners that two health care workers that cared for the dying Ebola patient are the only ones that have Ebola, and the first health care worker that got Ebola is doing better.  The second worker that has Ebola flew on a plane when she didn't have symptoms, and that Ebola is only spread when the symptoms are present.  Those that were on the plane are being watched and are aware of the situation.  He explains that Ebola is not widespread in America.  He encourages his audience to instead get a flu shot.  He said that 52,000 people died from the flu last year and you can be protected with a flu shot.

I enjoyed the truthfulness of his message and found it to be entirely cogent.  He cut through the bull and helped to alleviate the fear that has been permeating throughout America with regards to Ebola.

Opposition: Look what the test drug in...

What is to be gained by requiring people seeking state assistance to be drug tested?  One 
potential gain is that taxpayers can be assured that their tax dollars are not helping to fund 
another persons drug habit.  Another plausible benefit is that by testing future welfare recipients, drug users on state assistance can be identified and directed to the treatment they need, while still receiving benefits. These arguments appear to be reasonable, but there are other factors that play into this controversial topic.  I will illustrate how mandatory drug testing for assistance is about funding drug testing companies and politicians, how it targets a small subset of public benefits, and is also unconstitutional.

Let's delve into the real questions at hand here, and do what you should always when seeking clarity; follow the money train and see where it leads.  Who actually benefits financially from mandated drug testing?  The drug testing companies benefit the most from states adopting mandatory testing.  Drug testing is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Drug testing companies are targeting legislation that requires drug testing for welfare recipients, but that is not the only slice of the pie they want.  They also push for drug testing in the work place, government jobs, and now want to drug test school children, because there is a larger market there than the workplace.  Lobbyist are working for the drug testing companies, and in Utah, Senator Hatch has received over $30,000 in contributions from several drug testing companies. This is not a coincidence that coincides with Utah's new screening process for cash assistance for welfare applicants.  Since this law took effect in July 2014, drug testing has cost tax payers in Utah $25,654, with another $5,912 spent on the pre-screening tests, for a combined total of $31,566. Of these tests, that are meant to help families only 12 tested positive and then just four received treatment.  Is lining the pockets of politicians and drug testing companies really worth all the money we as tax payers in Utah have already invested in this initiative?  We can see that the identifying and helping of drug users on welfare is very limited in its scope compared to the perceived targeted audience.

Another question to think about is why is there legislation that seeks to pigeon hole welfare recipients into a drug using subset? All this is under the guise that it is  justified because those that use taxpayer's money should be held accountable. What about the rest of us that use taxpayer money?  How many people would mandatory drug testing laws affect if we included this logic?  Who among us receives tax credits?  What about attending public schools or colleges?  Who utilizes the services of the police departments? How about driving on public roads?  The fact of the matter is that everyone uses taxpayer-funded benefits.  It is unfair to require that welfare recipients be drug tested due to the stigma of using such benefits.  Additionally, only 3-9% of  those on welfare have drug problems, which is "similar to the subpopulation of the United States not receiving welfare benefits."  Thus, the problem with drug abuse is not constricted to the Americans using the benefits of the welfare programs or fairly applied to all who utilize government funding.

Florida's Governor, Rick Scott signed into law a drug testing requirement in order to qualify for welfare cash benefits.  Luis Lebron, a former Navy Veteran and single father applied for benefits in Florida, and was instructed to take a drug test.  After the drug test results proved negative he would then receive the $241 per month benefit.   The drug test cost is between $25 to $30, and is to be paid for by the applicant, and reimbursed by the state if the test results are negative for drug usage. He refused to test on the grounds that it violates his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable government searches.  In Lebron v. Florida, an ACLU case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found the mandatory drug testing law for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  to be unconstitutional.  The court found that "there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicion-less drug testing...could be constitutionally applied."  An interesting side note on Gov. Scott  is that he recently "transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife." Keep in mind that Solantic is one of the companies that provides the drug test required by his law, and this constitutes a definite conflict of interests. Laws should be created to help the people they serve, not to financially benefit those that enact them.  

 It is important to maintain our rights as citizens of the United States and require our leaders to uphold these standards.  By holding firm to a conviction that does not allow unwarranted drug testing we are ensuring that future generations will enjoy the same freedoms.  Mandatory drug testing is merely the tip of the proverbial  iceberg in regards to allowing government agencies to chip away at our constitutionally backed rights.   In taking a stand against those that seek to promote self interests at the expense of taxpayers we are on the right path to self preservation as a nation.