Savings on Stereotypes?

  There is no use sugar-coating it: our economy sucks. People have been scrimping and saving, tightening their belts, hiding their money in their mattresses, the whole nine yards. In this rough economic climate, the issue has come up lately about wether or not those who would receive welfare should be drug tested. This would supposedly save us all money by eliminating some welfare checks being used on drugs. But is this really the case? How much are we actually saving on this plan? Are we just perpetuating a long-held stereotype that "low-income people are lazy, shiftless drug addicts" (Sulzberger).
   Let's start with the effectiveness of this policy. It has already been instated in the state of Florida to dismal results. Out of the first forty people that they tested "only two came up positive" (Cohen). This means that the state of Florida would be spending too much on drug tests and not gaining enough back from not having to pay welfare checks. They would be earning "$240 a month if it denies benefits" to these 2 people, but they would be spending around "$1,140 to the applicants who tested negative" (Cohen). Florida is a real life example of why this system wouldn't work.
   Next, the human factor. So often we treat other people's lives like numbers  and statistics just because we may be better off. There are low income families out there barely scraping by on what little government money that they receive. These are honest Americans who are just down on their luck in these tough economic times, not "welfare queens" to use the phrase coined by former president Ronald Reagan. Some of these people are just getting by  on "a monthly welfare check of $342, plus $642 in food stamps" (Sulzberger).
  Finally, there is the issue of stereotypes. For the longest time the stereotype of those who are on welfare is that they are lazy people living it up on the government's dime. In truth, however, these poor folks can barely make it on their income and they can't get hired because they got laid off of their previous job. Sure, cutting some people's welfare would save us money, but how much? Enough to justify ruining a life? Sure some of the lower class does illegal drugs, but then so does some of the middle class, and indeed some of the upper class. So should we attempt to get savings off of stereotypes? Even the suggestion itself is crass.