The Right Not to Squat.

I was recently saddened by a report that Florida will now drug test their welfare recipients. I was even further saddened by a comment on Facebook asking how this was unconstitutional? The comment made an almost valid point that it is okay to test people who are working for their money, so why not test people who are not.

Please allow me this polite and extremely articulate moment to explain what is wrong with this way of thinking. I am simply asking permission to illuminate an area of the world that perhaps people who ask these questions have yet to see with their own eyes. Let me be your eyes, just for a moment, please.

First of all. Not all people who are on welfare are out of work. Some have full time jobs that don't make ends meet. Those people live difficult lives and are probably already being drug tested at their minimum wage, full time jobs. What Florida has done, is made these people spend even more of their time peeing in cups. Put yourself in their drive-thru windows for a moment. It is not a pretty world and the answer should not be to make it more ugly for them.

If you would like to reject the idea that drive-thru workers are on welfare to help their families and not buy alcohol and drugs, then perhaps you should know that when my husband and I were first married we qualified for welfare and we had full time jobs in highly respectable positions.

We were Airmen, in the United States Air Force. And we did not have the constitutional rights to refuse peeing in a cup while someone watched. And it was humiliating, especially in a country who's judicial system boasts the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." We were always suspects as airmen. Always. And it was not fun.

Although I believe that it is naive to think that everyone on welfare is on it due to great misfortune, I think it is equally as naive to assume that they are on it due to laziness or drugs. But, in the interest of helping those people who are deserving of such a program, perhaps we could find it in our hearts to err on the side of Democracy. After all, if any of these poor people are unfortunate enough to have parole officers, it is possible that we are already spending additional tax dollars to test their tinkles.

Secondly, if I have not lost you, I agree that it is NO MORE UNconstitutional to drug-test welfare recipients than it is to drug test non-recipients. There, if you re-read that last statement, you will find a clear solution. Stop drug testing the citizens of this nation. No matter, what program they belong to or what office they hold, drug testing is wrong. In the work place or a government building, drug-testing is communism at it's finest.

If you have never peed in a cup, perhaps you cannot understand the feeling of humility that happens as you squat over your own hand to collect a specimen of your own bodily fluid. There is a moment just before you begin to pee when your inner monologue says, "REALLY?!" and then repeats this sentiment as you hand over your warm, steamy cup to a teenager in a lab coat, because it is unnatural, disgusting and uncomfortable.

Lastly, I would appreciate the humble opportunity to point out that the reason we believe drugs are bad(mmm kay?), is because the government has funded propaganda to teach us that drugs are bad(mmm kay?). It is interesting, and not at all controversial, to point out that drugs are advertised millions of times per day on network television. My own father takes enough prescription drugs to make it unadvisable for him to drive his car to work. But he does, and he makes money and he is never drug tested.

The person who wrote the comment about drug-testing welfare recipients, (as good natured as I'm sure she is, and as well intended as, I must for my sanity, believe that that comment was) has probably never been drug-tested herself. She owns her own business and was left a considerable amount of money by a deceased relative. I can not imagine a situation when she would ever have to undergo humiliation for the sake of living, in this country. I would never dream of defiling her memories or being disrespectful in any way to her, personally. I bring it up because although she has done well for herself, there are people in her exact situation who are less fortunate.

For instance, it is not impossible for business owners to be addicted to drugs with out anyone ever noticing. They float along not needing state money to support their habit (but probably stealing plenty from their minimum wage workers, who may or may not be on welfare and/or drugs) and that creates an income injustice. It is the same as saying, "As long as you are financially stable, you can do drugs to your heart's content,"(not a message I would readily teach my children).

There are also plenty of other people in this world who have lost parents that left them nothing and after floating around from foster home to foster home, now have mental problems that make them reliant on welfare as well. None of these scenarios are pleasant, I agree, but when you consider them the conclusion is that by drug-testing welfare recipients we are telling them that the only way they are allowed to live the freedom(And by freedom I mean, privacy. The right to not squat, if you will) that others have is if they have the money to purchase it. That is unconstitutional.

Once again, I stand by my conviction that drug-testing anyone is unconstitutional. I will never, again, except a position that requires my urine in a cup. It is undignified.

Please, please, please, do not make me drudge up the "do onto others" or "walk a mile in their shoes" cliches from my childhood. It is worn out and let's face it, we don't all fit in each others shoes. One thing is certain though, when we submit to drug testing we are doing little more than peeing on our hands.