Someone else posted back that "it is unConstitutional", and violates the Fourth Amendment i.e. illegal search and seizure. He also said that it is illegal to "discriminate" against a class of people, and illegal to place restrictions on benefits.
And this guy is a lawyer (but not a Constitutional Attorney, obviously).
First, it is not an illegal search because they are not being forced into any search. They may choose not to be drug tested. If there is a drug test, they must actually consent to it. Yes, if they refuse, benefits are refused, which takes us to his other point...
Is it illegal to place restrictions on benefits? Not hardly. Benefits are not RIGHTS. They are priviledges. And privileges can have as many restrictions as the legislature wishes to place on them. For example, there are many restrictions on getting a driver's license, and not everyone can comply - when has a blind man ever passed the vision test? And don't welfare applicants have to pass an income verification test? Benefits may have restrictions, and may be revoked at any time. They are not "rights". Furthermore, the money for welfare belongs to the taxpayers, and therefore the taxpayers can mandate how and if it can be used. Like a donation to a charity, the donor reserves the right to decide how that money is to be used. A man donating $5000 to the local shelter may designate the money only be used for substance abuse counseling, for example.
As to his claim that we "can't discriminate against a class of people", that is pure bunk, for two reasons. The first is simple - no one is discriminating against a class of people (presumably he means the poor). It is not discrimination unless only SOME of the people applying are getting tested in a way that is not random, but based on a certain trait, such as sex, religion, etc. If he wants to call it discrimination, then the discrimination is against everyone not collecting welfare - the poor get free money, but the rest of us do not. Why? Because we cannot pass the income test. THAT is discrimination, according to his own logic.
More to the point is that it is so funny how liberals call it discrimination against the poor when we insist they do something not asked of everyone, but they do not see it as discrimination when they call for higher taxes on another class of people - the rich. Somehow they see discrimination in requiring drug tests on one class, but not discrimination to require higher taxes on another class. By his logic is it not discrimination to charge one person 39% tax while charging another person 15% - or even zero? Aren't the wealthy being targeted?
I always get a kick out of how liberals see everything through an "agenda filter" - as long as they are pursuing their agenda, all is fair - even their famous "double standard". High-powered liberals like Geithner and Dacshle can cheat on their taxes and get offered high-paying, cushy government positions, but a conservative actor (Snipes) cheats on his taxes and goes to prison.
Look, folks, it is time that liberals learn the differences between a RIGHT and a BENEFIT or PRIVILEDGE. Welfare is not a right - you have to qualify for it. All states and the federal government have already placed qualifiers for welfare, such as income level. And now two states have added another qualification. No more, no less. And that, my friends, is not discrimination - it is simply being responsible with taxpayer money.