Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Do you support drug testing to get approval to be on Welfare?

That’s the question someone on Facebook asked. At the time I write this, the proposition is winning 1.5 million votes to 73 thousand. I voted in the minority.

That’s right. I don’t support drug testing to get approval to be on Welfare. But then, I don’t accept the premise behind the question either.

The question assumes that the federal government’s policy on drugs is acceptable and that the federal government’s Welfare program is as well. Both are examples of constitutional overreaching by the federal government.

Nearly a hundred years ago the self-righteous among the population finally succeeded in their aim of getting the federal government to attempt by force to control human nature and behavior through the 18th amendment to the constitution. The unintended consequences were rebellion, crime and bloody warfare within our borders as federal “police” and organized crime sprayed lead in the streets and recklessly endangered the lives of ordinary people. Ultimately the 18th amendment was repealed – and it should have served as a lesson learned to the “good people” in Washington.

Fat chance. If there’s one thing that holds true in most cases its that politicians love power and control over the “little people”. Today’s federal “war on drugs” is nothing more than an extra-constitutional extension of prohibition. There is no constitutional justification for it. No new amendment was passed giving the federal government the power to outlaw “recreational pharmaceuticals” or to regulate any other kind of drug.

Don’t get me wrong here. I think that many of the drugs that the federal government has unlawfully outlawed ought to be outlawed. Just not by the federal government. This is rightly a matter for the states. Thus, if the people of California see a legitimate medical use for Marijuana then it should be up to the state of California to determine how to regulate the production, sale, and use of Marijuana within its borders. It’s not only analogous to what happened with prohibition, it fits the pattern quite well. There’s even a revenue opportunity for the states through the taxation of drugs – just as with alcohol and tobacco.

Correcting this abuse of power by the federal government would have other benefits too. There’d be fewer people put in jail simply for drug use. That would leave more room for the type of people that ought to be put away. It would also help to reduce the stigma associated with youthful indiscretion.

People are people though. There will still be drug addicts, just as we have alcoholics. People will still commit crimes in order to afford their intoxicant of choice. People will still ruin their lives by abusing intoxicants – or rather, by using consumables that have the potential to produce intoxication simply for and only for their intoxicating effects. The thing is, prohibition didn’t stop alcoholism, but it did make social drinking a federal crime and turned ordinary people into federal criminals – just as the federal “war on drugs” does today.

And then there’s Welfare, another misguided attempt by “do gooders” to substitute the hand of government for the duty of the individual. That’s really working out well isn’t it? The question that inspired this post points out the problem I think. After all, a bureaucratic program is subject to abuse, and when you hand out “free money” you’re going to attract free-loaders and the psychologically damaged as well. But there are other consequences too.

When it’s the job of government to provide a “safety net” for people that lose their jobs through misfortune, or to support those unwilling to support themselves then the individual duty toward charity is displaced. When we see an unfortunate on the street panhandling the thought isn’t “how can I help this person” but rather “why isn’t the government helping this person”. By the way, this is only an example. I don’t give to panhandlers, unless I am strongly moved by the Spirit. Instead, I give to charitable organizations that have made it their work to help the indigent. But my point remains – if it’s the government’s duty to provide for the needy it becomes harder for the individual to see that it remains their responsibility as well.

When the individual provides for the needy there is a moral upside. When the government does it, its morally neutral, if not immoral. After all, robbing Peter to pay Paul isn’t exactly uplifting for anyone’s soul. There’s still robbery going on.