For many years now, the government has been working effortlessly to control the loss of business endured by businesses due to the widespread of substance abuse. According to an article, “drug use in the workplace has been linked to low productivity, high absenteeism and increases in the number of workplace accidents (Jeanty, n.d., ¶ 1). Yet, drug screening employees and benefit recipients have become a discussion of privacy invasion and the Fourth Amendment. Many would argue on the basis of defamation from their employers and how they have been singled out from the rest of the employees. The government attempted to cease the use of illegal drugs in the workplace while assisting businesses with proper policies and laws to help eliminate the loss in which they have accrued.
In attempt to cease the drug abuse in the workplace, the government enacted the Dug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (DFWA) which mandated some Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree in providing a drug free workplace in order to receive any types of contracts or grants from a Federal Agency. The DFWA applies and directly affects any organization and federal contractors who are awarded a contract by any federal agency. Any organization or company in agreement with the DFWA is required to run a drug free workplace before obtaining any contract, post antidrug use policies and provide training to its employees, and must go through a drug free certification process in order to receive the grants (Jeanty, n.d.).
According to the guidelines under the DFWA, any grant or federal funded organization must update their current policies to implement the drug free workplace requirements as well as develop awareness programs which address the potential use of dr...
... middle of paper ...
... violation of the Fourth Amendment. There have been many cases and debates on the decisions made by employers to implement random and/or pre-employment testing as well as subjecting welfare applicants to the same testing guidelines. With the high unemployment rates, there are many Americans in search of employment who will be subjected to a drug test so why not utilize the laws to control the abuse of government benefits.
Until this issue is controlled and the laws are clear to understand, there will continue to be debates on the use of drug screening and the reasoning behind such method. The history of flaws and unreliable testing has turned the American people against such testing. In order to gain control, the federal government should look into these laws and make a determination has to how these policies should be implemented and to whom it should apply.
Prescription and pharmaceutical drug abuse is beginning to expand as a social issue within the United States because of the variety of drugs, their growing availability, and the social acceptance and peer pressure to uses them. Many in the workforce are suffering and failing at getting better due to the desperation driving their addiction.
...ult, and some times it does not give a result at all. It is unfair because it only targets certain workers; mainly low wage employees. It is unjust because people are automatically accused of using drugs, and that is why the drug test is given. Drug testing should not be abolished, but it should be a more controlled issue since it is something everyone in the US must go through.
"States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 March 2009. Web. 31 January 2011
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
Once one state passes a law on drug testing it sends a message to other states and makes sense for other states to pass the same law. This is what our government wants, about half of the states are considering similar measures.... ... middle of paper ... ... Now its up to government officials to make the correct decision and forget about drug testing welfare recipients. Works Cited Carpenter, Rachel.
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.
America's War on Drugs: Policy and Problems. In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis, I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed.
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most important, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
Substance abuse in the field of nursing has become a serious problem. Every day exposure to drugs in addition to other factors have contributed to the issue of substance abuse among nurses and the impact on patient care. Some may still be unaware of the substance abuse problem nurses struggle with, and they don't realize until they see the consequences on overall patient outcomes and work productivity. Learning to recognize the chemically impaired nurse has allowed the health care field to expand its awareness and begin to take action on this issue. “To ensure productivity, safety, and quality of care, most hospitals have instituted drug-free workplace programs...that identify prohibited behaviors and the consequences of violating the policy” (Epstein et al., 2010, p. 515). In hope of change to this issue, further action continues to be a work in progress.
American law enforcement has made drug enforcement one of its highest priorities for almost forty years. However, more people than ever are beginning to question the true benefits of the Drug War. The President of the United States, Barack Obama has even referred to the Drug War as an “utter failure” in the YouTube video “Barack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization (2004).” These kinds of negative opinions on the Drug War are not unjustified. The Drug War has cost Americans 33 billion dollars and countless lives (Miron Par. 1). The Drug War is a poor alternative to combat drug use in America as evidenced by the history of Prohibition, the crime it creates, the harmful effects it has on the lives of users, and the numerous deaths it results in. The Drug War is a failed policy and the government must respond by legalizing all recreational drugs.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
Using the resources and personnel given from the President’s drug policy, we can evaluate the efficiency of this policy. The increase in budget will aid in providing equipment, training, and staff to abolish the drug organizations. The statistical reports on the decrease of young drug-abusers have shown that the success of the President’s drug policy is effective.
Before I start to discuss the various ways to get control of substance abuse I
Job skills and training can even be investigated by the employer. The employee is to perform services and these services must be done in a certain manner. Someone who is incoherent because of drug abuse cannot be a pilot for example. This is why employers can test to see if characteristics or tendencies would affect performance. An employee may not want to give a urine or blood sample. The employee may not want to include all of their references but this is besides the fact that an employer is entitled to them. More and more employers are starting to feel this way. "A 1996 survey by the American Management Association found 81 percent of major U.S. companies had drug-testing programs at that time compared with 78 percent in 1995 and just 22 percent in 1987." (May 2) The employer has a right to only certain information and the line must also be drawn in the procedure to obtain the information.
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.