People on welfare shouldn't be able to use their benefits to buy illegal drugs.

OPPOSING VIEW: Program protects taxpayer dollars

That non-controversial sentiment helps explain why a push to mandate drug testing for welfare applicants is sweeping through nearly two dozen states. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs," says Colorado Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, "then you don't need public assistance."

Hard to argue with that. Before lawmakers get too carried away, though, they might want to consider what has happened in states that have tried such laws. If the experiences in Arizona and Florida are any guide, the answer is: not much.

While early results hint at some potential, savings have been small and few abusers have been caught. More troubling, collateral damage to children has not been effectively addressed — strange, considering that today's welfare program, which offers temporary assistance, is open only to deeply impoverished families with children.

Arizona was the first state to impose a testing program. In 2009, it began testing new welfare recipients when there was a "reasonable cause" to suspect illicit drug use. So how many of the 87,000 people subjected to the program have tested positive since then?

USATODAY OPINION About Editorials/Debate Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff. Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.

Just one.

That's right. The much-touted program netted a single drug abuser.

The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test.

If savings are the goal, Arizona's program is a bust. Disqualifying the single drug abuser saved the state $560 — out of the $200 million in benefits paid out since testing started. An additional $200,000, or one-tenth of 1%, was saved when 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionaires.

And Florida? For four months last year, before being stopped by a court, Florida tested all adult welfare applicants (but not people already in the program) and charged them the $30 to $40 cost of the test. About 2.7% tested positive. More significantly, roughly 2,000 — one-third of applicants — failed to take the test. But there's no telling how many feared failing the test and how many couldn't afford the fee. The cost is repaid if the test is passed, but welfare applicants might struggle to muster $30.

The legal issues are still unsettled. The federal trial judge who temporarily halted Florida's program ruled that it unconstitutionally mandated searches without suspicion.

It's a close call. A federal appeals panel upheld a similar program in 2002, finding that Michigan had "a strong interest" in ensuring that welfare funds were used properly. By a tie vote, the full court disagreed and the program was halted.

The children, meanwhile, have received too little consideration.

In Florida, if a parent is disqualified, another adult may be designated to receive the children's share, but few disqualified applicants have taken advantage of the process. Nor is there any provision in either state's program for rehabilitation.

None of this is stopping legislators elsewhere from pushing ahead, or seeking ways to expand drug testing to unemployment benefits, food stamps and other forms of assistance.

States obviously have an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds are spent wisely, as well as in discouraging drug use. And it's clear that some recipients of federal assistance abuse drugs. A 2002 federal study put the number at 9.6% — compared with 6.8% in the general population.

Even so, until states can come up with a smarter way to ferret out the abusers while protecting children, the testing craze will be just another program that appeals to stereotypes in hard economic times while producing little value in the real world.