STATE SHOULD GIVE UP EFFORTS TO TARGET THOSE ON WELFARE

Michigan should drop plans to defend its drug testing plan for welfare
recipients.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts has made the case clear: The plan
is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, a random check for illegal
activity without cause.

The constitutional standard here is reasonable suspicion. But the
state's plan fails to call for one -- unless Michigan wants to argue
that receiving welfare benefits makes one reasonably suspect of illegal
drug use. Studies show drug use among welfare recipients to be about
the same as in the general population.

True, some private employers require drugs tests of prospective
employees. But private employers do not make up a monopoly. Nor do they
provide entitlements.

Michigan was the first state to institute such a blanket plan, aiming
to better prepare recipients for work. But there are plenty of
effective ways to get drug users the help they need without making poor
people give up their rights to privacy.

Trained counselors can spot signs of drug abuse through interviews and
questionnaires. But mandatory drug tests deter some people from
pursuing benefits their children need -- and from getting help with
their drug problem.

Roberts issued a preliminary injunction Friday, extending last year's
temporary restraining order barring the Family Independence Agency from
running the drug tests.

The state said Wednesday it will appeal. It should not. Pursuing this
discriminatory plan is a waste of taxpayers' money.