LOOKING GLASS LEGAL LOGIC LOOMS

There is an odd wrinkle to a Michigan proposal to test welfare recipients
for substance abuse.

It is not odd that the idea would generate controversy. It has.

It is not odd that welfare rights advocates and the American Civil
Liberties Union are screaming bloody murder - the latter, to no one's
surprise, is suing to kill the plan.

The surprise is that many of Michigan's welfare recipients side with
government agencies and taxpayers in saying the idea has merit.

Recipients' take on the issue is slightly different than plan proponents',
who see it as a way to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. Recipients add the
credibility argument: They, as do taxpayers, see a few people abusing the
system. The majority of welfare recipients who do not abuse the system
support the idea of drug tests to avoid a negative and unjustified
stereotype that assistance recipients are cheats, dissolute and lazy.

There is another argument regarding the plan: If a recipient tests positive
he does not necessarily lose benefits. If the person enters a substance
abuse treatment program paid for by the state he can keep the benefit. Only
if a person tests positive for abuse and does not partake of the offered
help will benefits be denied.

Thus, everybody wins: Taxpayers and government agencies ensure that scarce
financial resources are used wisely and beneficially, and people with a
problem get treatment that may lead to a far better life for them.

There is another perspective. Many private sector employees - and some
public sector ones - are widely subject to drug tests. Whether they are
pre-employment only, mandated for everyone, random or based on probable
cause varies.

If working people are required to prove they are not substance abusers why
should non-working people who are living off the former's largess not be
held to the same standard?

Critics say it is not a parallel situation: An employee has an option to
not take the test; a welfare recipient risks losing benefits if he refuses.

Piffle. If an employee refuses to take a required drug test he loses his
job; if he refuses to meet the demands of a potential employer for a job he
is qualified for he also can lose unemployment or welfare benefits. It is a
double loss.

At least welfare recipients can keep their benefits and get treatment. It
is a double gain.

What's the inequity?