CHARLESTON — Moving with evangelical fervor, Delegate Craig Blair is mounting an intense publicity campaign to muster support for testing West Virginians on public assistance for illegal drugs.

Blair ignited one of this session’s more passionate bills with a fiery floor speech weeks ago.

Since then, he has created a special Web site, www.notwithmytaxdollars.com, attracting hundreds of hits from supporters and a smattering of critics, enlisted some fellow Republicans in the House, and now has won the heart of the West Virginia Farm Bureau.

Not a week has passed that Blair, R-Berkeley, hasn’t stood in the glare of television lights to push his bill that seeks random drug testing of anyone getting a welfare check, food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Blair has another gimmick up his sleeve — bringing in a former drug addict who indulged while getting welfare — to endorse his effort.

Yet the two people he needs to sell the idea to most are giving it an icy reception.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, has put a DOA tag on the bill, if it ever is shipped over from the House.

And his counterpart in the House, Judiciary Chair Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, likewise is hardly enthusiastic.

Webster concedes that the public, so far, has overwhelmingly sided with Blair, but she feels a large segment of society has been silent and definitely needs to be heard — the very folks his bill would target.

“We’ve heard from a very limited number of individuals that have been pushing this,” she told The Register-Herald this week.

Moreover, she tends to agree with Delegate Sally Susman, D-Raleigh, who blistered the bill with a letter left on Blair’s desk and circulated to the media, taking Blair to task for a “presumption of guilt” implied in his bill.

“And that’s a terrible suggestion,” Webster said in an interview.

Webster alluded to the Century Aluminum plunge, and other work sites, where West Virginians have been thrown out in the street, losing jobs through no fault of their own.

Are these people to face the humiliation of a drug test when applying for jobless benefits?

“I think that every single person who finds himself out of work right now in West Virginia would take great offense and be embarrassed and shamed at that,” Webster said.

“I think what will happen is you will see more groups that advocate for the poor and for those who are in situations that put them in a position of receiving aid.”

What’s more, Webster suggested that Blair won’t find much sympathy in the House of Delegates.

“Many members of our body were children whose families were on some sort of state or public assistance,” the judiciary chair said.

“I’m not hearing from other groups, who are advocates. Maybe they think that this is just an issue that doesn’t have legs. I do think there is some interest in the public.”

And even if the House lined up in Blair’s circle, Webster says many questions need to be answered.

“We need to know the fiscal impact,” she said. “We need to know how it would be administered. We have counties that can’t even administer a drug program right now for their employees. The board of education in Kanawha County has been wrangling for years over it. Even if it would be good public policy, we would need to know how much it would cost, and how it would be administered, and whether there are any constitutional issues.”

On that latter point, the American Civil Liberties Union in West Virginia has vowed to put up some stiff resistance, viewing the Blair proposal as an invasion of privacy.

“I’m not saying it’s not going to come on the agenda,” Webster said. “But right now, there are too many unanswered questions to say that I could even do that. I’m not going to rule it out. I may at some point consider a public hearing.”

For now, she wants to hear from such potential stakeholders as the West Virginia Council of Churches, and advocacy groups to speak up for the poor, the displaced workers.

Without question, the “two strikes and you’re out” bill, which would shut off benefits if a recipient tests positive in a two-month span, is fanning some flames in the public.

“And I think it’s worthy of a debate,” Webster said. “But I think you’ll find that personally I find what Delegate Susman says is very true. And I hadn’t even thought of it that way.”

To presume guilt because someone is on the dole clearly doesn’t sit well with Webster, either.

“To me, it seems insensitive and inhumane,” the Charleston attorney said. “And I think at a time when the unemployment rolls are growing and the request for aid that some of these proud workers never dreamed they would take, and a time in our country where we are facing challenges, to me is a slap in the face of those who most need assistance.”

Did this enter Blair’s mind when he came up with the testing bill? Webster cannot say.

Yet this aspect is definitely going to figure into the committee, if and when his bill comes for consideration.

“That will be part of that dialogue the media will get to follow here shortly,” she pledged. “Stay tuned.”