A proposed bill to require drug testing of those receiving welfare, food stamps or unemployment benefits is stirring much talk in the West Virginia Legislature.

But the measure, suggested by Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, hadn't yet been introduced as of Friday. And state Sen. Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall - chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - doesn't see it becoming law.

"There is no program I'm aware of that requires intrusion into one's personal life to receive any type of benefits," Kessler said. "Alcohol ... smoking cigarettes ... it seems we are we are making requirements of what someone is doing in their personal life. And will this roll over into Social Security benefits?

"This is an intrusion into one's personal life, and I see no state interest in this. It will go absolutely nowhere."

Kessler also has concerns for the recipient's family members who may depend on these benefits.

"What do you do when these benefits are usually for dependent children?" he said. "Mom has pot in her system, and has three or four hungry kids at home."

Drug testing is often necessary in instances where public protection is of concern, Kessler continued. School bus drivers and pilots are among those subject to the testing.

"But I don't see any justification for it here, other than to lash out at somebody," he said. "It's hurting the kids. They're the victims."

Delegate Orphy Klempa, D-Ohio - who in his day job represents a trade union - said he understands the argument in favor of drug testing when safety issues are involved.

"But when it comes to personal rights, I'm a true believer in individual rights," he commented. "And if someone is injured on job, they deserve to get a disability check. ... I know I don't want to be the one kicking the guy or gal down."

Costs for the testing has been an issue, he noted. A member of the House Finance Committee, he has learned prices could range as high as $150 if testing were done for every illegal drug.

"We want to get as many people off drugs as we can," Klempa said. "We also have to look at the expense of taking on something of that magnitude."

He believes there are better ways of accomplishing drug-free goals.

"I'm a firm believer that it's all about education and getting people good jobs," Klempa said. "The ills go away when have a good job and the ability to raise a nice family. It's a good banner to carry in the fight against drugs in this country."

Delegate Patrick McGeehan, R-Hancock, called the bill "a conceptually solid plan."

"Morally, government shouldn't be providing benefits to addicts," he said. "If we are using taxpayer money to fund addiction, it's not fair to the taxpayer."

A fair percentage of drug users have children, he acknowledged.

"If the parent uses drugs, there's a good chance of their children growing up to be users," McGeehan said. "This can help prevent from growing up to use drugs in the future. In the meantime, the recipient can become clean."

But implementation of such a program should be the focus, he continued.

"We have to be careful with implementation," McGeehan said. "If a person fails the test, there definitely should be a second chance there."

He suggests a "two-strike policy," and at least a 60-day period before a person's benefits are eliminated.

Delegate Tal Hutchins, D-Ohio, termed the bill "an interesting idea."

"If drug dealers are moving into communities when the (benefits) check is in the mail, we have serious concerns," Hutchins said. "Then we have to ask ourselves, what means do we have to provide assistance to those with problems? Are we willing to spend the money to help people addicted to drugs."

Hutchins noted he would be more agreeable to the legislation if it instead provided for random drug testing of benefit recipients.

"I have concerns about costs," he said. "I also have concerns about false test results. These could ruin a family that loses its benefits, and we must proceed cautiously. There are a lot of issues that this has raised. It's an interesting, provocative bill."