I caught hold of this interesting report a few weeks ago on MSNBC. It was a story about Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and a bill passed that would make it mandatory for welfare recipients to essentially pee for services. They would have to get tested for drug use and the kicker is they would have to pay for it. Since then South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Ohio state Sen. Tim Grendell and a few others are working to get similar legislation passed.

According to the politicians involved, there are vast amounts of individuals on the welfare roles who are drug and alcohol abusers and the public shouldn't pay for their habits. Many of the politicians are able to spout alarming statistics or can give heartfelt examples to prove their point. In Rick Scott's case he sited that 10 to 15 percent of the welfare recipients in Florida were drug abusers. Gov. Haley gave an example of applicants to a nuclear facility, where she said she was told by officials that 50 percent of the people who applied flunked drug testing and of the other 50 percent who were left only half could read and write properly.

People have what I call a zoo mentality when it comes to welfare recipients. They hear stories about how they are lazy and putting out babies to stay on welfare. They hear about people who are unemployed who would rather pick up a check than work. When they hear public officials feed into their stereotypes, they tend to feel this justifies cutting their funds, because of course they're only going to use it for drugs anyway, so the story goes. Some of us what to treat them like children, so that's why some will agree that having welfare people prove their not on drugs is a good thing, so money isn't wasted.

The problem is the stories told by the politicians is a lie!

OK, let's say misrepresentation of the truth, just to be politically correct about it. In the case of the Rick Scott, after six months of testing, now understand the poor who are on welfare have to PAY for the test to get the money, only 2 percent of applicants flunked the test. Also, just to make it perfectly clear, there was no drop in applications during this time. As far as Haley and the nuclear facility, officials there have been on record as saying they don't test applicants for drugs, only the people who are hired are tested for drugs. Again, just to make sure everything is clear, of the people hired and tested for drugs, only 1 percent tested positive.

So you have politicians who are ordering drug tests to make sure every drop of money is being used 'responsibly' yet this is to protect taxpayer's money from, at the most 3 percent of welfare people who might use drugs. Does that sound efficient?

It is worse than you think. In the case of Florida, in which a paper in the state when through an extensive example showing cost and savings of the program, the final analysis showed that, in a worse case scenario, the state could save anywhere from $50000 to $100000 in cost to rejected applicants. The welfare program in question cost the state $178 million a year. Now, it is true that if a person comes up negative on a test they will eventually receive the money back ($30 a test) but this test is done every month to receive the cash assistance. Now, to break down the large yearly numbers into practical figures, the state gets around 1000 to 1500 cash assistance applications a month. At a 2 percent rejection rate, we're talking 20 to 30 people denied benefits. It's a lot of cash going in which will be returned to a majority of the people. What the article didn't mention is how long does it take for the money to be returned?

There is probably a bigger factor involved, since all that testing means some company will make a lot of money from the state contract to screen those people. Since so many people are clean, the state will end up paying the bill for those tests. I'm not sure how that is fiscally responsible. It seems the only ones making out over the drug testing system is the company that administers the test.

And there is where the rub is with the Rick Scott push for drug testing. Not only are welfare recipients to have mandatory drug tests, but those state workers who are under directors Scott appoints will have random drug tests, and all new hires must have drug testing. It seems Scott was the founder of a company called Solantic and guess what they are? They are an urgent care chain who also does . . . drug testing! While he supposedly divested himself from the company, controlling shares are in a trust under his wife's name.

I don't know what the make up is for the other politicians who are pushing for forced drug testing for welfare recipients, but if things are even close to the Scott situation you have where the stereotypical fear of wasted funds on drug addicts on welfare is being used to force the vast majority, about 97 percent, of non-drug users to take test which will turn up negative, but the cost will be paid by the state to a urgent care facility that might be beholden to elected officials. That is unacceptable.