Do you support drug testing to get approval to be on Welfare?
Published Thu, Nov 10 2011 6:28 AM
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 Ultimately the 18th amendment was repealed – and it should have served as a lesson learned to the “good people” in Washington.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.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1489
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2011/11/10/1489.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
T.F. Stern responded with:
 | Perry; You are correct, the federal government has no business being involved in redistributing wealth for the purposes of welfare. It is not within the Proper Role of Government (talk given by Ezra Taft Benson many years ago).
That having been said, the federal government has already inserted itself in that role and so the question is how to best limit the damage since it would seem improbable that we can ever get the government out of the welfare business entirely. In that case, making it mandatory to submit to drug testing and passing that test should be part of the deal. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Sadly it's true. We must deal with the government we have, rather than the government the founders bequeathed to us. So how then do we fix the problem? In this case by taking advantage of one unconstitutional excess of government to restrict the access to another unconstitutional excess of government in yet another unconstitutional way?
Are these the only options we have? If so, it's already too late - we have completely substituted the rule of men for the rule of law and the constitution is merely a comvenient pretext for those that will accelerate us down the road to lawlessness. I guess Nancy Pelosi was right... questions about the constitutional authority for acts of the federal government are not really serious questions anymore.
We're doomed and it's just a matter of time before the corpse starts to rot. |
David responded with:
 | I jumped--mentally--from your post title directly to the thinking of your second and third paragraph. One of the things that makes me uncomfortable with Newt Gingrich's candidacy is the story Jerry Pournelle has related about his question to Newt about the constitutionality (really, the lack thereof) of the federal giovernment's so-called "war on drugs". Pseudo-conservative Newt dismissed the question (based on the need for a now-repealed ammendment to give the feds the power to regulate ONE drug--alcohol) with an airy, "Things are different now."
Yes things are different now. In 1920 there was still some residual respect for the Constitution. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | This one makes me crazy. Some oppose it as being unfair. What crap! If you are 'doing drugs' there is no way the taxpayer should be funding your existence. It is debatable whether the taxpayer should fund anyone's existence.
Like most conservatives, I believe in a 'safety net' but not for those who abuse the privelege. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Abusing the privilege and safety nets
| Well, I guess that's where I separate myself from "most conservatives". I don't believe in a government safety net, although I especially don't like it when people abuse the privilege. Having said that, I can't honestly say that I wasn't grateful for the supplemental income that those unemployment chacks gave me when I was looking for work. But I was looking for work, and if the checks had been cut off we would have survived - just at a much less comfortable standard.
Still, the unemployment benefits I recieved were STATE unemployment. Not federal benefits. And to me, the distinction matters, because the federal constitution doesn't allow the government to provide such benefits - at least not if you read what it actually says rather than what lawyers and "judges" have perverted it to mean. Washington's constitution on the other hand does allow the government to provide the benefits, and it's appropriate that the State, much closer to the people receiving the benefits be the one that provides them.
No, I don't believe in a federal safety net, nor in the federal drug laws. Both are unconsitutional, and using one to help to block flaws in the other isn't something I support. Two wrongs don't make a right. Scrap both programs. Leave it to the states.
Then, if the state wants to have a welfare program, let them decide how to manage it, and whether drug testing should be used as a way to filter out those that will abuse the privilege. Then I'd support it. |
Comments to this entry are closed.