Recently some state legislative bodies (Florida for example) has suggested that those who receive what is traditionally known as "welfare" (assistance from the federal government for food, housing, and or medical care) ought to be drug tested as a condition of receiving those benefits. Failure to pass a drug (using illegal drugs, or prescription drugs without a valid prescription) could result in a range of sanctions from complete suspension of benefits, reduced benefits, and a requirement they attend treatment. The question to consider is whether this is "good policy" and what are the potential benefits and costs of such a policy? Consider benefits from a broad perspective (less governmental spending on welfare, accountability of recipients, potentially better care of dependents) as well as the costs (not just the financial cost of the screen and the cost of treatment, but the cost of a loss of privacy or a sense of fairness, or what potential negative impact this would have on recipients (including children of those who fail drug screens). After fully exploring the pros and cons of this policy, explore how this policy might raise issues with society as a whole. Be sure to research how states have proposed or