In light of the recession, lawmakers are taking action by penning legislation that targets welfare reform.The goal of these proposals is to devise a system able to distinguish between those who deserve welfare and those who drain tax money. By the logic that illicit drug use is a bad investment of public funds because addictions render users unsuitable for work, legislation designed to weed them out has recently gained long overdue popularity.The purpose of welfare is to provide finances for those in need, with the ultimate goal of positioning the recipient in such a way that they are able to return to work.It makes sense to randomly test welfare recipients for drug usage, given the workplace typically requires employees to be drug free.”If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not benefits?” Rep. Craig Blair, R-WV, told Associated Press.Blair is responsible for authoring legislation House Bill 3007, which has generated the most cohesive interest and support for welfare reform in recent times. Viewable on Blair’s Web site, HB 3007 is considered the most comprehensive proponent of welfare reform because it seeks to mandate all types of welfare.The legislation would submit those receiving public assistance to randomized drug testing. Failure of the first test would be treated with leniency, but a mandatory second test would have to be taken within two months.If the individual fails a second time, they would become ineligible to receive public assistance for two years. Once the two-year ban is lifted, they would be allowed to reapply for assistance after submitting another drug test.Supporters of Blair’s legislation should be wary of potential implementation costs, as putting the testing into practice may end up costing more than it’s worth, especially considering the lenient wording of the legislation.But one way to ensure financial security in this venture is simply eliminating language limiting Blair’s legislation to “random” testing.It may sound drastic, but it’s hardly a new tactic. A similar method is already used by the federal government to determine a citizen’s likelihood of being audited for their income taxes. Though the auditing process isn’t wholly random, nor absolutely precise, it does serve to streamline effectiveness by focusing on individuals most prone to flouting the law, based on their history and suspicious circumstance.It would be prudent to ensure the program — which should be small to begin with — will be able to pay for itself with the money generated by welfare recipients who fail the test. Blair’s legislation has the right idea, though it would help tremendously if semantics did more to guarantee the success of the program. Otherwise implementing it may prove counterproductive.Such a concern, one focused on the financial difficulties welfare reform might encounter, is the only reasonable objection to the type of legislation proposed by lawmakers like Blair.Other protests hinging upon the alleged “victimization” of welfare recipients because of drug testing are groundless in that they ignore the optional nature of the use of both drugs and welfare.One may choose to use drugs, just as one may choose to use welfare.Further, anyone who makes these choices is responsible for being informed as to what consequences they entail. Thus, requiring welfare recipients to be drug tested isn’t “taking advantage” of anyone — it’s simply introducing discretion into the institution.Collectively, this brand of welfare reform will only foster personal incentive to improve, thereby resulting in a more productive individual who is a lesser financial risk.Linnie Leavines is an 18-year-old mass communication freshman from Central City.—-Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]