Pubdate: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 Source: Bakersfield Californian (CA) Copyright: 2000, The Bakersfield Californian. Contact: PO Box 440, Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440 Website: http://www.bakersfield.com/ 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? - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D