You might have heard recently that Wyoming just mowed down a movement requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. And good thing, too. As many other states weigh the pros and cons of similar legislation, they can look to Wyoming, home of the world's largest Special Olympics truck convoy, as a role model.
A quick Google search reveals that Wyoming's reasons for shooting this bill down in a blaze of glory smack of the same logic Florida used to put welfare drug testing on hiatus a couple months ago. Down there, a federal judge claimed that such testing violated citizens' Fourth Amendment right to a protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Now, like most debates, this sucker has more than one side to it. Those who support welfare drug testing cite many arguments, my favorite being, "Shouldn't you have to pass a urine test to collect a welfare check, since I have to pass one to earn it for you?" On the other hand those who oppose the measure, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, preach that filling that little cup is "a reflection of ugly stereotypes that people who need a helping hand from the state are drug dealers."
And what an ugly, utterly unfounded stereotype it is! Drugs aren't the root problem among welfare-reliant people. The drug trade is a 600 billion dollar business! Even the white-collar guys convicted of insider trading and securities fraud have a hard time getting in on that many greenbacks. The real problem government dependents face is the lack of handouts. Without these, studies show that as their money runs thin, the crime rate goes up. Of course, since the crime rate also rises with drug use, it follows that, by slightly tweaking the rules of logic, a lack of handouts inevitably leads to drug use, which then leads to more arrests and more incarceration. In the end you get stats like this: over 7 million citizens are incarcerated in the US or are being monitored by law enforcement, with inmates each being babysat to the tune of about $35,000 annually.
Clearly, then, the government needs to change its attitude about those in need who occupy themselves by tasting colors and laughing at sidewalks. The administrators need to spend more time dishing out extra dollars to these folks, rather than cutting off their money supply just because they're more likely to use the revolving door of the penitentiary as a merry-go-round. Only then can we stop this out of control spiral we face where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and just keep the poor right where they are.
But, that's just my two cents. The Florida judge used a different slippery slope fallacy in her dissertation, stating that “If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need, the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program." After all, who is the government to discriminate as to who gets taxpayers' money? It must be cognizant of the fact that justice is blind, and so should be the people writing the checks. It's not like government is a business or anything.
As a quick reminder, all men (and I guess women) are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If the government starts dishing out benefits based on whether or not applicants use illegal drugs, then how are beneficiaries supposed to enjoy their God-given right to pursue/inject/snort happiness? Most laws don't exist to reward based on merit; they exist to level the playing field and make a just society that takes from each according to his ability, and distributes to each according to his need for a fix.
No comments:
Post a Comment