People who apply for welfare benefits should be tested for drugs and they should be cleared of all illicit drugs before they receive any benefits in the form of cash or food stamps because, the government spends so much money on welfare and rehabilitation programs and screening welfare recipients will help the government save more money to fix the economy. Most employees are tested of illicit drugs before they are employed by their employer so why shouldn’t welfare recipients also be tested of illicit drug before they receive any kind of assistance? The government deducts so much tax out of worker’s earnings of which part of these deductions go to fund welfare programs, therefore welfare assistance like cash should not be used to purchase illicit drugs by recipients especially when the government is fighting against illegal drugs on the market. Some of the recipients of welfare assistance take advantage of the program and go for welfare aid even when they could live without the support of welfare, this is a clear indication that some recipients abuse the welfare program and therefore there is a need to screen recipients. Since applicants and recipients of welfare programs are not tested of any illicit drugs before they receive benefits from welfare providers and there are no control measures or regulations to make sure that the recipients of these assistance are truly eligible, welfare programs tend to assist drug barons instead of the vulnerable in the society. This does not come as a surprise when the government spends billions of dollars of the tax payer’s money every year to fund drug prevention programs and welfare programs. Unfortunately, most of these drug addicts are poor and bankrupt so they depend on welfare assistance, ...
... middle of paper ...
...at, the purpose of welfare aid is achieved and the recipients truly deserve it.
If applicants of welfare benefits are tested for illicit drugs before they receive any benefits in the form of cash or food stamps, the sale and usage of illicit drugs will reduce drastically and therefore the government will not have to spend more money on drug related programs. According to John E. Johnson of the Neuroscience Research Center, “illicit drugs is the leading cause of preventable deaths and disability in the United States” (Johnson). Its consequences come with huge economic cost and therefore, all states including North Dakota should pass a legislation that will screen applicants and recipients of welfare benefits. Our taxes should be used to help the poor and underclass to live a better life and not to be used to pay for illicit drugs and alcohol by some beneficiaries.
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
There has been an ongoing controversy as to whether welfare recipients should have drug testing done. Drug testing will ensure that recipients will not abuse the money they’re given by the government. Having people on welfare take drug tests is advantageous because it could save the system money, it would help social workers identify children who are experiencing drug abuse, and it would deter people from purchasing and using illegal drugs; however, it does have a downside such as people who are on prescription medication will show false positives, it can be an invasion of privacy and drug testing can take hundreds and even thousands of dollars to administer. Drug testing the people on welfare is beneficial because those who are on drugs would no longer receive welfare, allowing the system to save money. With more than billions of dollars of government funds possibly ending up in the wrong places or spent treating drug habits, the least that can be done is to make sure money is being put in the right hands.
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.
Now is not the time for the United States federal government to decriminalize or legalize illegal drugs, including marijuana. However, nor can the government continue to do nothing about the financially, economically, and socially expensive domestic drug policy it currently follows. The United States Congress should pass legislation to remove mandatory minimum penalties from drug offenses, and the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons should add in-house rehabilitation programs for its incarcerated drug offenders. These policies would increase the cost-effectiveness of current drug policy and reduce crime and drug use, and do not face the political obstacles or have the uncertain consequences of decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.
can become a major source of income, not only for the inmate, but also for
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
Drug trafficking has been a massive concern between the borders of Mexico and the U.S. “since mid 1970s” (Wyler, 1). Drug trafficking is “knowingly being in possession, manufacturing, selling, purchasing, or delivering an illegal, controlled substance” (LaMance, 1). A dynamic relationship exists amongst Columbia, Mexico, and the U.S. the informal drug trafficking economy. This growing informal drug economy leads to many individuals creating a substantial living through this undercover market. These individual drug cartels monopolizing the trafficking market are a growing problem for the U.S economy and need to be located and controlled. If this trafficking continues, the U.S. informal economy will crush the growth of legal industries. The trafficking and abuse of drugs in the U.S. affects nearly all aspects of consumer life. Drug trafficking remains a growing issue and concern to the U.S. government. The U.S. border control must find a way to work with Mexico to overpower the individuals who contribute to the drug trafficking business. This market must be seized and these individuals must be stopped.
“States Consider Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients.” Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 21.8 (2009): 4-6 Academic Search Premir. Web. 28 Sept. 2015
In this essay I will define drug abuse and show the economic impact of the sales of illicit drugs. I will introduce an argument for legalization and the impact to the economy. Next I will discuss some of the economic cost from lack of productivity, health care cost and other cost associated with Drug abuse.
The Drug Policy in the United States The Drug Policy in the United States is a very strict and well defined
The drug control policy of the United States has always been a subject of debate. From Prohibition in the early 1930’s to the current debate over the legalization of marijuana, drugs have always been near the top of the government’s agenda. Drug use affects every part of our society. It strains our economy, our healthcare, our criminal justice systems, and it endangers the futures of young people. In order to support a public health approach to drug control, the Obama administration has committed over $10 billion to drug education programs and support for expanding access to drug treatment for addicts (Office). The United States should commit more government resources to protect against illegal use of drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
The National Drug Control Strategy was issued two years ago to reduce drug use among teenagers and adults. The success of the President’s drug policy can be measured by its results. The student drug testing approach has reduced drug use and discouraged first time users significantly. Communities have been more actively involved in anti-drug programs for youth and adults. The increase in budget for law enforcement will enhance their effectiveness in detaining drug lords and cartels.
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.
Harmful drugs are an issue that creates controversy just by being mentioned, let alone acted upon by public policy. Despite this, policy actors must address drugs, through action or inaction, for the chance to make our society safer and healthier. Scientists and policy makers tend to agree that some drugs can be harmful to their users (Nordegren, 2002), but there are two broad camps of opinion on how best to protect users from these negative effects. This paper will discuss the ways that the policies of harm reduction and prohibition are formed, and identify the key actors in this policy space.