MANY ON WELFARE WELCOME DRUG TESTING

Detroit - Outrageous, The Advocates Say. Insulting.

Michigan's plan to test all welfare applicants for drugs is "a vicious
assault on their constitutional rights," a cruel case of treating the
poor like criminals simply because they are poor.

To which many of those same poor reply: So? For to them, the plan
makes a whole lot of sense. They call it long overdue.

Even as the American Civil Liberties Union prepares to take the state
to court in a quest to block the drug tests, many of those who rely on
welfare say it's about time the government held them responsible for
what they do with taxpayer handouts.

They've seen too many people trade food stamps for crack or blow
welfare checks on booze while babies at home go hungry. It sickens
them. So they welcome Michigan's drive to be the first state in the
nation to require urine tests of all new welfare applicants and a
random number of those receiving aid.

No passing grade, no benefits

Under Michigan's plan, those refusing to comply will not receive
benefits. Those testing positive must enter treatment - in a program
selected and funded by the state - to keep receiving checks.

That's fine by Sophia Bowman, 31, who works part time but counts on
welfare to help support her two daughters. "They should do random drug
screens, like they do on the job," she said. "It's only fair."

Recalling the days when it took all her will to buy a few groceries
for her seven children before spending the rest of her welfare cash on
heroin, Pam Nelson had to agree: "At first I got defensive when I
heard about the tests," she said. "But you've got to stop the circle
of madness."

Clean for five years now thanks to state-funded treatment, Nelson, 37,
said urinating in a cup seemed a small price to pay for a chance to
sober up and receive steady cash aid. "When you think about it," she
said, "they're not asking too much."

Or are they?

Federal judge blocked program

Michigan's program has infuriated welfare advocates across the nation.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of two women who deemed urine tests
a humiliating invasion of privacy.

And a federal judge last month blocked the program at least until a
court hearing, calling it "very likely unconstitutional" because it
subjects a broad class of people to unreasonable searches without any
suspicion that they are abusing drugs.

"While it is clearly in the public interest to have all members of
society drug-free and working in gainful employment, these goals
cannot be pursued at the expense of the Constitution," District Judge
Victoria Roberts ruled in a scathing rebuke to the state.

Opponents of the drug tests contend that there are many less invasive
- - and more effective - ways of nudging substance abusers into
treatment programs.

At least two dozen states use clinical observation or diagnostic
questionnaires to identify welfare applicants most likely to be
abusing drugs or alcohol.

Only Michigan tests everyone

In some states, these at-risk individuals are required to take urine
tests - and enter treatment, if necessary - before receiving benefits.
But only Michigan plans to test all applicants without first screening
them for probable cause.

Although questionnaires may seem a feeble way to track down addicts -
there's nothing to stop a respondent from lying - policy analysts say
they really do work.

Urine tests catch only those who have used cocaine, heroin or
amphetamines within the past few days, or marijuana within the past
several weeks. And they don't detect alcohol abuse.

The questionnaires, in contrast, probe suspicious patterns of
behavior. They seek to define potential substance abuse with questions
such as: Have friends ever urged you to cut down on your drinking? Do
you ever need an eye-opener in the morning? Do you ever feel guilty
about your drug use?

Such questions tend to elicit honest answers and to give a better
picture of the scope of any problem than a one-time urine test,
experts contend.

A study around Jacksonville, Fla., for instance, found that 20 percent
of welfare applicants identify themselves as probable substance
abusers through their answers on questionnaires. But only 5 percent
test positive on urine screens. Michigan's first month of urine
screens in three pilot regions - before the court suspended the
program - found 8 percent of applicants testing positive, nearly all
for marijuana.

Michigan officials have said they did not consider other methods of
drug screening but settled immediately on urine tests as the most
direct and practical approach, and the one used most often in the
private sector.

Michigan's constant references to the private sector - where many
employers mandate drug tests - outrage the ACLU and other critics.

In the private sector, they argue, people have a choice: If they don't
like the idea of drug tests, they can look for a job that doesn't
require them.

But welfare applicants are "essentially a captive audience," Roberts
ruled. Desperate for money to feed their families, they have nowhere
to turn but the government - and are forced to submit to a test that
invades their privacy and implies they use illegal drugs.

"They treat you like they own you," grumbled Brenda Lindsey, a mother
of six on welfare for 11 years.

To Michigan Gov. John Engler, this argument is nonsense.

Poor people do have a choice, he insists: If they don't like the drug
tests, "there's no requirement that they come in and apply for welfare."

And if these poor people have no other source of income?

"Well, apparently they have the money to buy drugs," he
said.

If people are clean, they shouldn't object to proving it, Engler
reasons. If they're not, they should welcome treatment "rather than
asking the people who are working and paying taxes . . . to support
their habit."

Plus, a urine test "is no more degrading or humiliating than what some
of these people do to get drugs," argued Beatrice Taylor, a recovering
heroin addict who spent 25 years on welfare.

Bristling at barbs from human-rights activists, Engler and his backers
seek to cast their program as altruistic, not punitive.

They insist it will help poor children by ensuring that parents don't
waste their meager income on drugs. And they proudly note that the
pilot program provided full funding to treat all who tested positive -
even through relapse after relapse. (Those who failed to comply with
the treatment would have their benefits cut 25 percent for four
months, then terminated altogether.)

Engler also noted that the state already has addressed other problems
that often trip up those trying to get off welfare.

Michigan subsidizes some day care, for instance, and even buys cars
for some welfare recipients. Although advocates say poor women need
better counseling for depression and domestic violence, Engler
contends existing programs must be working, as Michigan's welfare
rolls have plunged more than 60 percent since reforms began seven years ago.

"This project really represented a golden, exceptional opportunity . .
. (because it) offered any and all coverage for treatment," agreed
Jerry Frank, director of the Berrien County welfare agency in
southwest Michigan.

Skeptics, however, doubt the Legislature will continue to fund full
treatment for addicts if the drug-testing program expands statewide,
as intended by 2003. A nonpartisan analysis estimated the cost at $79
million per year.

Because no study has documented pervasive drug abuse among Michigan's
welfare population, some accuse state lawmakers of picking on the poor
because they make an easy and politically popular target.

If lawmakers are so concerned about people squandering taxpayer money
on drugs, they ask, why not demand urine samples of every college
student on state scholarship? Or every senior citizen on Medicaid? Or
every farmer requesting crop subsidies? "Singling out welfare folks
for (drug) tests," the Detroit Free Press editorialized last month,
"is baseless and pure discrimination."