The war on drugs and welfare

The U.S. welfare system is a problem for a great number of reasons. It's inefficient, inadequate and culturally perceived to be a humiliation to be suffered under by those at the mercy of its auspices.

There are many different considerations on how to deal with the problem. Many propose doing away with it entirely, while others propose minimizing it. Many on the left propose larger protections for those in need. I'm more concerned with those who propose reform that limits welfare. For example, Florida passed mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, although a federal judge has blocked the law, and unfortunately, other states look to follow suit.

This policy hinges on certain logical and moral processes that may at first seem sensible. But when analyzed further, they are very suspicious. The first is that it's certainly a consequence of the war on drugs, at least in a sense. Denying necessary aid to those in poverty because they failed a drug test — any drug test at all — does not differentiate between the casual marijuana user and the crazed heroin addict. It is a silly zero-tolerance policy that attempts to remove nuances and constructs a black-and-white morality around human actions.

That sort of policing of human behavior, with regards to issues such as drug use, creates a scenario where those who suffer the worst are the ones denied the aid to help them get better. Drug use has been proven repeatedly to be associated with poverty and its pressures, not the cause of it. Cutting welfare to those who use drugs does not solve the problem of drug use. The war on drugs is an overfunded failure of a policy that overwhelmingly targets the poor — so why add stipulations in welfare that expand the policing of poor people?

Why is it that those who are set to receive welfare or unemployment benefits are the ones who are forced to undergo this drug testing? You might say the government is giving them "free" money and therefore can provide stipulations on how to receive that payment. It is a somewhat fair point — if welfare recipients were the only ones receiving federal or state money. American tax dollars are used to pay for an enormous number of things not directly associated with the government, such as student financial awards and contractor salaries. Why doesn't the American government make it mandatory for these groups to undergo drug testing?

Alternatively, for that matter, why don't these groups refrain from spending any of their money on things that are not associated with their direct personal needs, such as alcohol or cigarettes? Hell, why not go to the bottom of the well and allow the government to have a say in how to raise your child because of the tax credit you get for childbirth? Should farmers be mandated to pass drug tests because they receive subsidies? That entire line of logic is a huge affront to human dignity, let alone human rights.

Every single person in the United States receives some form of aid from taxpayer dollars — be it from welfare checks or road construction. No one is advocating that every American must prove they are moral upstanding citizens to use these privileges. To say Americans could be subsidizing drug use through welfare is disingenuous, since any person given money by the government can spend it on drugs outside of very specific situations. So what's so special about the word "welfare" that means everyone who uses its services is subject to the moral policing of society and government?

Tom Bradtke is a senior history major. He can be reached at bradtke@umdbk.com.