WELFARE RULES TOO HARSH, COURT AFFIRMS

The federal appeals court in Cincinnati has handed Michigan an opportunity
to dispense with one of John Engler's most ill-considered initiatives. Now
all our new attorney general has to do is sit back and let it die.

He should.

In a two-page order issued Monday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down a 1999 Michigan law that required parents who apply for or
receive welfare benefits to undergo drug testing.

Proponents led by then-Gov. Engler argued that Michigan had a right to
assure that welfare recipients were drug-free before disbursing taxpayer
dollars. But U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that mandatory tests
violated the privacy rights of recipients unless the state had a reason to
suspect them of illegal drug use.

As Roberts and other critics of Michigan's law have pointed out, there is
little evidence that welfare recipients are disproportionately disposed to
abuse illicit drugs. To the contrary, national surveys indicate that most
such substances find their way into the bloodstreams of more affluent
consumers.

A Full-Court Reversal

A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit overturned Roberts' ruling late last
year, holding that welfare recipients have a diminished expectation of
privacy and could avoid mandatory testing by eschewing benefits. But this
week -- by a 6-6 vote whose practical effect was to affirm Roberts' original
ruling -- the full 6th Circuit embraced the view that Michigan's law went
too far.

The razor closeness of the appellate judges' vote may tempt Attorney General
Mike Cox to press the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Other states have
adopted some form of drug screening for welfare recipients, although none
that I could identify require testing absent a reasonable suspicion of
substance abuse.

Advocates of mandatory testing maintain that their only objective is to make
sure welfare applicants with drug problems get appropriate treatment.

But in Michigan, even those who seek such treatment voluntarily are often
hard-pressed to find it. Lawmakers who claim a genuine desire to help
addicts would have more credibility if they were adequately funding the
treatment needs of substance abusers who have already been identified.

Beneath Suspicion

The truth is that drug testing of welfare applicants has always had less to
do with reducing substance abuse than with appeasing the anger of
middle-class voters who suspect their tax dollars are being squandered.

Taxpayers do deserve reasonable assurances that the money their elected
representatives have allocated to feed and clothe impoverished children
isn't going up some cocaine addict's nose. But mandatory drug screening of
poor people is neither a fair way nor a cost-effective one to go about it.

If Michigan has a legitimate interest in testing anyone who seeks state
benefits, the ayatollahs of urinalysis could make an equally strong argument
for testing driver's license applicants, MEAP scholarship winners or
taxpayers who claim the homestead exemption. After all, there are substance
abusers hiding in all those populations.

And while we're at it, why not mandatory Breathalyzer tests for lawmakers
who seek to enter the legislative chambers?