Drug testing of public-aid recipients is one of those proposals that sounds good at first blush.

After all, many private- sector employees are required to undergo drug testing as a condition of getting or keeping a job. So why shouldn’t those who are supported by the taxpayers have to abide by the same rules?

Because the issue isn’t quite that simple. A private employer can simply dismiss a drug-positive employee and be done with the problem. But in the case of aid recipients, what happens when they test positive?

Should those individuals be forced into treatment, or at least offered treatment? Where would the funds come from to provide that treatment? Should their children be removed from their homes? Should law enforcement be alerted?

And, most important, is drug testing of these individuals really in society’s best interests?

In Oklahoma, House Bill 2388, which would require applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to undergo drug testing at their own expense, has passed a House subcommittee.

An applicant who tests positive would be denied aid for a year and then could be retested. Children of these individuals would still be eligible for benefits through third parties who pass drug tests.

A similar bill has passed a Senate committee.

About 40,600 TANF-eligible Oklahomans could be affected by the drug-testing measure.

Proponents point to Florida, where data purportedly show that the state saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by denying assistance to applicants who tested positive.

But there also have been reports about the unseen costs of drug-testing. In Colorado, for example, where a similar measure is under consideration, an analysis showed that the state and counties would end up paying hundreds of thousands more if the proposal becomes law.

Legal challenges to the law could increase costs to the state, and then there are the costs of the tests themselves, which taxpayers must pay in some cases.

The state Department of Human Services already has the authority to drug test aid recipients if there is a suspicion of drug use. About 5 percent of those who have been tested have tested positive for drug use.

So it seems that a mechanism already is in place here to address drug use by aid recipients.

Why adopt a politically motivated feel-good law that could open up the state to more costs and legal challenges?

— Tulsa (Okla.) World