Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Benefits of drug testing welfare recipients
Why should people on welfare be drug tested
Sociological forces drug addiction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Benefits of drug testing welfare recipients
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?”
Although the government may have their suspicions on testing individuals who they provide assistance to, I feel that they shouldn’t drug test the individuals who are receiving assistance. Though, drug testing the individual seems as it would be a quaint idea, the cost of the tests stand as an issue. Rosenfeld discusses in his article that most drugs can leave a person’s system in about two to three days. Furthermore, it has become quite common today that majority of the drugs that people utilize drugs stay in a person’s systems for a few weeks to a few months (i.e. marijuana).While taking this thought into mind; it shows how the drugs tests won’t be accurate. Simply because, many people will try to beat the test by attempting to cleanse their system in order to receive their benefits.
These tests place a stereotypical viewpoint and they antagonize the low income citizens (Rosenfeld). Even though, people state that the testing would be a violation of Amendment 4, they stand correct an...
... middle of paper ...
...ile a lawsuit against the government. The government is trying to do this to create budget cuts due to the fact that they could be investing the money elsewhere.
Works Cited
Besonen, Mark. "Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients: Pro." The Concordian. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
"Growing Support for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2014
Rosenfield, Derek. "It Makes NO Sense to Drug Test People Who Apply for Government Financial Assistance." Drug Policy Alliance. N.p., 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Sulzberger, A. G. "States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Williamson, Jason. "Florida Cannot Drug Test People Simply Because They’re Poor." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 02 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
... funds for future projects that are required in the area. This small enforcement can increase the reserve funds by $11,654.53 (Creel, 2011) dollars when fully collected.
The chapter, Selling in Minnesota, had some disturbing information about the low wage life. As I read, I learned that every place the author went to apply, such as a Wal-Mart and a Home Depot type place called Menards, required the applicant to pass a drug test. The author went out and had to buy detox for $30, but can be up to $60. Also, I learn that 81% of employers do drug test their future employees. I don’t like this statistic, in part because I tried getting a job at Marshall Field’s restaurant and they required me to pass a drug test. Luckily, another employer called me before my scheduled drug screening (which I had planned on passing by being really sneaky and using the urine of a friend of mine), so I took that job offer and everything worked out well. The reason I don’t agree with the drug testing required to access most entry-level jobs, is because the only drugs they actually test for is Marijuana. Cocaine and heroine leave the body within three days, and other drugs aren’t even tested for. So that leaves the most commonly used illicit drug, and one that has the least affect on the user, to be tested for.
Michels, Patrick. "Testing the Limits: a Texas Mother’s Radical Revolt Against Standardized Tests." Texas Observer. N.p., 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. .
The ability for all children from varying walks of life to receive a well-rounded education in America has become nothing more than a myth. In excerpt “The Essentials of a Good Education”, Diane Ravitch argues the government’s fanatical obsession with data based on test scores has ruined the education system across the country (107). In their eyes, students have faded from their eyes as individual hopefully, creative and full of spirit, and have become statistics on a data sheet, percentages on a pie chart, and numbers calculated to show the intelligence they have from filling out bubbles in a booklet. In order for schools to be able to provide a liberal education, they need the proper funding, which comes from the testing.
Two sources that prove that drug testing in the U.S is unfair and unjust are Nickel and
“Standardized Testing Has Negatively Impacted Public Schools.” Opposing Viewpoints: Education. Ed. David M. Haugen, Ph.D. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.
"States Consider drug testing for Welfare recipients." Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly 21.8 (2009): 4-6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 04 Feb. 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
There has been many cases of fraud that people have lied about housing and unemployment. This leads to questionable debate whether recipients should be drug tested or not. In North Carolina a law has been passes for all of the recipients getting assistance must be drug tested. (Parker 1) “For example, according to The Associated Press, Utah saved $350,000 in its first year of drug-screening welfare applicants, though it found only about 12 people who tested positive” (Parker 1). Many states have questioned this new law to be passed or not because it may save the government money in the long run.
Not only does the public lose money in this process but it costs Americans a
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.
Smith, M. (2010). Why NOT a National Test for Everyone. Kappan, 1. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from www.pdkintl.org
Standardized testing is an unfair and inaccurate form of judging a person’s intellect. In many cases, people are either over- or underrepresented by their test scores, partly because America does not currently have the capabilities of fairly scoring the increasing number of tests. Additionally, many students today are not native English speakers, and their capabilities could be grossly underestimated by these types of exams. Although President Bush is a supporter, many influential people are against this bill, including the largest teacher’s union in the United States, which has formed a commission in opposition to the President’s proposal.
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.
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.