Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
effectiveness of drug testing in the workplace
effectiveness of drug testing in the workplace
effectiveness of drug testing in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: effectiveness of drug testing in the workplace
The process of drug testing individuals who are applying or receiving welfare benefits has recently become the focus of a widely spread controversy. Florida, the first state to pass the law, now requires all individuals applying for public assistance to undergo drug testing. The state of Kentucky, among others, have considered following this trend. State lawmakers hope to prevent the squandering of taxpayer dollars on drugs by proposing similar guidelines. Alabama’s states representative Kerry Rich clearly affirmed his state’s position on the matter, “I don’t think the taxpayers should have to help fund somebody’s drug habit” (qtd. in Time).
A decision to implement mandatory drug testing may be an imperative step for preventing welfare abuse; however, officials must not disregard other influential factors. We must also consider the multitude of variables that will or will not allow the law to work, and have a clear solution in place. Although not all Kentucky residents see eye-to-eye, an objective resolution remains vital.
Lawmakers insist due to an abundance of anonymous reports of welfare abuse, they must pass a bill to protect the state’s financial interest. State Representative Lonnie Napier alleged, “People are calling me from all over the state, telling me about people who are selling food stamps or other public assistance for drugs" (qtd in Kentucky). Napier’s theory behind the notion: if the state mandates drug testing when the applicant applies as well as on a random basis, they may target the individuals responsible for selling their food stamps for drug money (Kentucky).
The public, media, and fellow lawmakers have raised a list of concerns. One of the more worrisome matters, how much of an expensive will t...
... middle of paper ...
...ple sell food stamps for drugs. However, they also sell them for other sometimes-valid reasons as well; we cannot penalize the children. Kentucky needs a new law to prevent welfare abuse that includes specified expectations with detailed ramifications. Officials vote yes to pass this bill, when all factors have been considered, and a definitive resolution is in place.
Works Cited
“Amend KRS 205.200.” Kentucky Legislature Research Commission. Nov. 2011. Web. Nov.
2011. < http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11rs/hb208.htm>
Brammer, Jack. Kentucky Lawmaker Wants Random Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients.
17 Jan. 2011. Web. Nov. 2011. < http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/17/1600950/ random.html kentucky-lawmaker-wants-random.html>
Cohan, Adam. “Drug Testing the Poor: Bad Policy, Even Worse Law.” Time. Ideas.Time.com,
29 Aug. 2011. Web. Nov. 2011.
It ties the hands of judges, hurts legitimate treatment, and effectively decriminalizes heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Drug courts hold drug abusers accountable with regular drug testing and consequences for failing treatment— accountability not found in Proposition 36.” Drug testing is a part of court-supervised drug treatment everywhere in California today, and it will continue to be under Proposition 36. There are no legal barriers to drug testing. Judges can and will order appropriate levels of testing of offenders placed in treatment under the initiative's system; Proposition 36 simply does not tie judges' hands by prescribing a one-size-fits-all regimen for all offenders.
With more and more people becoming unemployed and applying for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), it is imperative that we understand the benefits as well as problems this causes. Even while researching this topic and talking to some of my family and friends about it, it surprised me the amount of those who do not understand food stamps. Coming from the SNAP website, “Food stamps offer nutritional assistance to millions of eligible low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities” (United States). This program helps millions of people per year and gives upwards of $75 billion and rising. With the prices of food increasing due to inflation, beneficiaries are receiving around $400 at most per month. Using the Electronic benefit transfer systems (EBT), beneficiaries can buy goods from a grocery store using a credit-card like transaction, which takes the money off of their card. The benefits are received monthly on a specific date and vary in amounts from person to person. One family may receive $300 per month because they have three kids and need the extra money, while another may receive $100 or less depending on financial status. The application process includes completing and filing an application form, being interviewed, and verifying facts crucial to determining eligibility. In the past, these applications did not require a drug screening to get benefits, but more and more states are adopting this. There are many drawbacks to SNAP as well such as taking money from working people’s paychecks every week and people abusing the system. Talking about a very opinionated subject, we must remove bias and answer whether or not the Food Stamp system should be limited.
"States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 March 2009. Web. 31 January 2011
, implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, individuals that support the law, express that the plan being put in effect is to ensure that tax payer’s money isn’t being thrown away on people who only plan to abuse this assistance. Out of the fifty states, only nine have proceeded with the drug testing of candidates. The drug testing has proven to be quite expensive. Consequently, some of the states only test subjects with whom they find suspicion, or that have admitted to drug use in the past. Though the proposal of drug testing Welfare applicants appears to be a good idea to weed out spongers from getting assistance, it seems that more money may be wasted on the testing itself, which would be imprudent in proving this law worthwhile.
Healthcare has been a topic of discussion with the majority of the country. Issues with insurance coverage, rising costs, limited options to gain coverage, and the quality of healthcare have become concerns for law makers, healthcare providers and the general public. Some of those concerns were alleviated with the passing of the Affordable Care Act, but new concerns have developed with problems that have occurred in the implementation of the new law. The main concerns of the country are if the Affordable Care Act will be able to overcome the issues that plagued the old healthcare system, the cost of the program, and how will the new law affect the quality of the health delivery system.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Wendy Underhill , 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
“Every dollar that is fed to a welfare recipient’s drug habit is a dollar lost to a family that would have spent it on needed items.” (Vitter 2) Taxpayers money should not be spent on treating drug habits. Some states are having to tighten welfare eligibility to deal with limited state budgets. drug testing would better yet inform the government who is abusing the system. Drug testing can use up to hundreds or possibly thousands a month wasted on drugs, not only is it dangerous for their well being, but it does harm to the economy as we build up further and further into debt.
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.
Fitz debunks the myth that the U.S. cannot afford to pass the bill by providing statistical and analytical facts. Based on an analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the DREAM Act would actually reduce the deficit by 2.2 billion dollars over the next 10 years. In addition, Fitz states that deporting over 700,000 eligible students would cost taxpayers a hefty price of $16.2 billion over the next five years. He provides three basic options to solving the immigration issue: deport them, preserve the status quo and ignore their efforts, or sign the bill that would grant them citizenship and endless opportunities. Fitz believes that the first two options are “morally bankrupt and fiscally irresponsible” (Fitz), and that they U.S. cannot afford to pass up on the opportunity to reduce the huge
By implementing a policy change to require drug-testing to recipients in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would be beneficial to clients in a clinical setting. For example, evidence has shown that drug testing has the potential to reduce unnecessary government spending and misuse of funds.
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.
Welfare is intended for families or individuals that are in need of assistance with no or little income. For those who do not know, Welfare funds come from hard working individuals that are required to pay taxes. Now we wonder, are the tax payers’ hard earned money going to the right deserving recipients? Welfare fraud is on the rise in this country. Many are taking advantage of the system taking away the help that is meant for people that truly needed help to provide for their families or people that need assistance until they can stand on their own feet. Statistics clearly show that “785,000 to 1.2 million families are illegally receiving welfare benefits. At the average rate of $11,500 per year, this means taxpayers are being scammed out of roughly $9 to $13.5 billion dollars every year” (User, par. 4) that is $13.5 Billion dollars of the tax payers hard earned money that is going to the wrong people that do not deserve it. What are the types of Welfare fraud that are being committed in the United States that our government needs to pay close attention to? To start, hopeful recipients will intentionally give false information about their household income to qualify. Some will sell their food stamps also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). Also, illegal and misuse of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) is one of the problems our Welfare System is facing today. All three are considered illegal and these type of activities need to be stopped immediately. People that are in need should be given the assistance they desperately ask for. The System should re-assure tax payers that their hard earned money is going to the right recipients and is not going into the wrong hands.
With prisons growing at the rate they are now, there must be more funding. 1 out of every 131 U.S citizens is incarcerated. The rest of the citizens have to pay for this person to have a place to sleep, eat, and exercise out of their taxes. These taxes can and should be used for more important issues. I...
The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.