Drug Testing Welfare Recipients: Unconstitutional
“A closed mouth doesn’t get fed” is a saying that many people have heard throughout life. This saying was brought about to encourage people to ask for help if needed. But what happens when the open mouth asked to be fed, and instead of receiving help they are forced to be demeaned by going through a rigorous process that assumes that all applicants fall in to the category of drug addicts? Guilty until proven innocent is the message conveyed to persons requesting these services. Millions of dollars are spent each year on federally funded programs that are considered “welfare”. The types of services these programs offer include TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and more. In hopes to detour those that use illegal narcotics from obtaining these services to fund their addiction, many states have either implemented or considered implementation of new procedures to follow when applying for these benefits; conducting mandatory drug screenings on individuals that apply for government assistant. Due to the overwhelming number of persons receiving welfare benefits, most lawmakers have drafted proposals mandating drug testing among applicants; this requirement is unconstitutional and should be revoked.
A disorder that has drawn the concern of lawmakers is the substance abuse and dependency among welfare recipients. In an effort to identify illegal drug use amongst this population, lawmakers have proposed the use of chemical testing (Pollack, Danzinger, Rukmalie, & Seefeldt, 2002). In Missouri this procedure is already in effect. In July of 2011, Governor Jay Nixon signed the bill into law. The repercussions for testing posi...
... middle of paper ...
...though I must admit that there were two reading assignments that helped me through this entire process all the time. Understanding Tone and Voice in Writing and the Citing Sources Tutorial were two sections I would continuously go over while editing my papers. Distinguishing the difference between reliable and unreliable resources will be one of the sections that help me the most professionally. I am currently enrolled in the Paralegal Studies and in that line of work it is imperative that I ensure the information that I am receiving and/or gathering is reliable. The writing skills that I have acquired through this course will allow me to draft clear and concise reports. On a personal level, this course has also raised my confidence and stopped the blanket of stress that overcomes me when I am unsure of how to effectively help my children with their homework.
Have you ever questioned the tax taken out of your hard-earned money? Questions similar to that are where the money is going and if it is being used properly. In the U.S. news recently those questions have been on a great deal of State’s minds; reaching back to 2003, this issue has been brought up time and time again. The main topic of tax money is the use of assistance money and are the recipients really using the money for the right reasons. There are many problems with the assistance program but the one that comes to mind the most is that many people abuse the money given to buy the essentials and provide, for their family for illegal drugs. The solution that many state representatives have come up with is drug testing as a requirement for assistance. This will eliminate the abuse of the assistance program; also it will cut down the cost of assistance which is very expensive as a whole.
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not Welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. The lines of reasoning from both sides of this argument have unambiguous points. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional, and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against the poor
Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? U.S News & World Report. 2014: Pgs 1-2.
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. Both sides of the argument have merit. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against those from low socioeconomic demographics, implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, those who support the law note that its intended purpose is to ensure that taxpayer money is not being squandered on people who only plan to abuse this assistance. Only nine states so far have instituted drug testing of candidates for welfare assistance. This drug testing has proven to be prohibitively expensive in many cases. Consequently, some states only test subjects with whom they find suspicion, or who have admitted to past drug use. Though proposed drug testing of welfare applicants initially appears to be a good idea to eliminate potential abusers of the system from receiving assistance, it appears that even more money may be wasted on the testing process, which negates the savings that are the primary objective of the law.
Bush's “war on drugs”, an extension to Reagon's former battle, had “crowded the courts, filled the prisons, corrupted law officers, compromised ... civil liberties, and criminalized substantial sectors of American society.” 1 In comparison to the leniency experienced in the late 1960s under Nixon where a “specific sub-culture of some 68,088 identifiable heroin addicts” who, subject to arrest for the possession of the heroin, and successfully convicted, were “sentenced to treatment at the federal hospital in Lexington, Kentucy.”2
The Government needs to draw the line somewhere. In Sweden the Government was giving out free heroin, in order to keep the drugs free from being impure. However, Margaret McKay (2001) declares that if we follow in same steps, soon we will be giving out not only free heroin, but also other illegal substances as well. It will then lead to problems with other drugs as well.
Meth, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are among the top drugs that many people use and utilized as money making tactics. As we all know, drugs are found and they are heavily used in low income areas, not only do they pose a significant effect on one’s health but they pose a significant effect on our economy. Generally it is perceived that those who reside in low income areas are the ones who resort to drugs, evidently they are. Likewise, they are also the ones who are assumed to be enlisted on government assistance programs. Some of these programs include; health care, child care, ebt benefits, and even housing assistance programs. So the substantial question is “Should people who receive government assistance undergo drug tests?”
In my opinion I feel that this time of authority drug test are not effective. ” It would seem that if this policy were to make way that there would not be such a large rate of recidivism” (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1999). It takes more that sending a person to prison to break them of their habits. The means which are necessary to aid the cause of ending a drug habit are not available with this policy. Under the Bill of rights, the four rights that this policy violates are, The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to be treated the same as others.
The harsh punishment for drug crimes in the United States of America is not working. “With roughly half a million people behind bars in the U.S. for nonviolent drug offenses, drugs are as plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier, 2013). Even with very harsh long sentences and many people imprisoned drug use is as common as ever in America. ‘We cannot close our eyes anymore’ to the cost in human lives destroyed and taxpayer dollars wasted” (Holcomb, 2015). Harsh drug penalties are destroying American citizens lives and is costing a lot of money from taxpayers. “Yet, people who want treatment can often expect to endure an obstacle course just to get help” (Grenier, 2013). The Unites States government is spending a large amount of money on arresting and imprisoning drug users, yet are putting little to no focus on funding drug medical help for
Going into this course, I felt that the reading and writing skills I learned in high school were very beneficial in preparing me for an English college course. In high school, I was enrolled in GATE and AP English courses. In these classes, I was assigned several readings and was taught to actively read by doing annotations. I was to summarize the writer 's main points, to write down my own opinions, or to connect it to any personal experiences. These annotations helped me understand the writer 's message better because I was able to break down the things the writer said and only focused on the important points. Then, I was also able to form my own opinion on that topic by deciding whether I agreed or disagreed with the author’s opinion. Moreover, I used evidence from the text to support my argument.
... to introduce a bill to modify a state law that mandates random drug testing of welfare recipients who have recently been convicted of a drug felony.” The law burdens and already stressed county welfare system, costs more money and time than it will save. The role of the county welfare is to follow the law, not to redefine it.
As a first year college student this course has taught me many core aspects to writing and critical thinking. Writing has not been one my strongest points in education, but I feel this course has helped me make strides in writing in many ways. This course has enlightened me on various aspects of writing and has taught me many different ways of writing quality essays. A few things that this course has taught me is how construct an acceptable thesis statement, how to prove my points in body paragraphs, and how to properly cite sources. Although I have learned an immense deal of writing skills within this course there some things I feel I can improve upon, such as, introductions and properly heading papers.
Drug use now in days has grown more over these past years, with the abuse of drugs many people still have the privilege to apply freely to the welfare programs such as WIC, Food Stamps, and TANF. My interest to this topic is why it would be unconstitutional to be able to do a drug testing on welfare applicants.
As the common phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Change in the welfare system is a must now more than ever because the government is in such a bad economic state, and it must and should be ensured that the tax payers know exactly where their money is going once those welfare checks are administered. Drug testing is a top priority in welfare reform and it should be; tax payers’ money should not be used for the purchase of illegal substances. The state of Texas and the United States face problems with misuse of welfare funds and there must be a change in the system in order to combat this. The purpose of welfare is to aid those that are in financial need to purchase the essentials required for survival. Individuals receiving welfare should subject to a drug test at any moment to ensure that the assistance they are getting is not misused. There are a number of reasons why the recipients should take a drug test and these are the top three: ensuring that tax payers money is not misused, reduce drug use, and to be fair to the working citizens of America.
The United States of America has 5 percent of the world’s population and currently is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated individuals. This is an alarming number. This disproportionate ratio has been growing over recent decades. The war on drugs that was started under the administration of President Ronald Reagan has caused this measure to worsen. Most arrest are concentrated in lower income communities that are predominantly non-white and are at the lower end of the income range. This has caused an already medically underserved community to suffer further disparities in health care and overall health. This review concludes that the policy of over-incarcerating the individuals, who would be better served through rehabilitation and community intervention, is causing a devastating destruction of family units and the health of our citizens.