LAW: JUDICIAL CONFUSION

In extending a temporary restraining order against drug testing of welfare
recipients, a federal judge has drawn a remarkably crooked line between
that which is acceptable and that which is not.

A year-old Michigan law requires welfare applicants to submit urine
samples. If they test positive for illegal drugs, they are not arrested.
They are, however, required to undergo treatment as a condition for
receiving benefits.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit, saying the law violated the
constitutional ban on "unreasonable search" -- and the judge, seeing some
credibility in that argument, continued a ban on enforcement Tuesday.

Yet on the day the judge made his ruling, countless job applicants
underwent drug testing across the nation.

That makes for a strange double standard. The Fourth Amendment permits drug
testing as a condition for getting paid to work. But apparently it may
prohibit testing as a condition for getting paid without working.

Besides, welfare is only temporary. If a recipient doesn't get a job within
a specified time, he will lose his eligibility for benefits permanently. In
many cases, he can't get a job until he can pass a drug test. By destroying
the sense of urgency to "get clean," the judge may make some difficult
lives even more miserable in the long run.

It is neither an act of compassion nor a constitutional mandate to destroy
the incentive of downtrodden people to lift themselves up before the
"safety net" goes away.