The United States economy is in trouble and the economy statewide is not doing any better. In rough times like these those elected into public office are put under extreme pressure to try and alleviate the problems. Different people have different ideas of ways to fix the economy, and drug testing before receiving welfare is one of them that is still not agreed upon. Welfare drug testing has been a highly debated topic in the U.S. for quite some time now. There are plenty of opinions that agree and disagree with the drug tests, but real statistics uncover the hard truth about the success of welfare drug testing.
To start with, there are holes in the drug testing laws themselves. The laws were made in a way that protects the children of parents who are drug abusers. To accomplish this the children are given a way to still receive that money even if their parent does not qualify for the welfare support. For example, if a parent tests positive for drug abuse the money that the kids need will be given to a trusted family member to ensure that the kids are taken care of. It seems like a good way to protect and take care of the helpless
…show more content…
When people talk about welfare drug testing it seems like there is a large amount of drug abusers who are trying to receive assistance. That is not the case. Statistics show that there was not a substantial amount of positives applying for welfare in the first place. The statistics were from states who enforce welfare drug testing and they showed that an average of one percent of applicants tested positive for drugs. That number is a whole lot smaller than what the public makes it out to be. With numbers that small the cost to have the drug tests done costed more than the amount saved by denying them welfare checks. Spending more money on the drug tests is not helping the economy and is a good reason to put them to
This is because the taxes there paying is what found the government to provide these programs. So since most Americans on social welfare programs live up to the stereotype of “abusing the system”, taxes payers disagree with the system and want to get rid of it. However, they do bring up a significant point on the flaws of the system because the governments spends large amounts of taxpayer money while producing results that are the opposite of what it is intended. According to “Statistic Brain research institution” the total government spending on welfare annually not including food stamps or unemployment is $131,900,000,000.
Like the bike you bought after saving lawn-mowing money for a year, welfare reform was the prized trophy of the conservative governing philosophy. We believed that we’d found the vehicle of social mobility for poor Americans, once and for all. No one should live on taxpayer money without doing some work on their own, right? Everyone agrees, right? Wrong.
In Why Drug testing Welfare Recipients Is a Waste of Taxpayer Money, Darlena Cunha works to persuade that drug testing welfare recipients feeds the stereotype stigma towards those asking for the extra assistance and is actually wasting the taxpayer’s money. As soon as the page opens, there is a large image of two gloved hands holding a drug test. The picture is dark and the light is focused on a blue urine test for Cannabis and an Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC). As a result, the image automatically gives the reader a serious and eery tone.
Drug abuse often is rampant among the lower socio-economic classes. The bill will directly affect families whose benefits are decreased, specifically, the children of the parents who test positive for drugs. This policy seeks to deny aid to the recipients who are using drugs, but benefits will continue for minor children. However, they will continue to suffer because they are dependent on their parents for sustenance.
If there is no new money put into the welfare system, the states are not going to be able to run the programs any better than they already are. The state of Wisconsin’s W2 program invested millions of dollars to support the kind of envisioned welfare reform. Money to get poor people to the jobs they’re required to find, money for health care, money for day care because single mothers cannot leave their young children home alone while they work, and money for job skills training, which welfare recipients need to find work in a competitive market.
The Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) is an act initiated by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, and passed by Congress, to become law on August 3, 2010 (Phillips 2012 ). The FSA intent is to reduce the gap between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to initiate federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio. The FSA also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of crack cocaine (Reid 2012). The FSA replaced the controversial Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) of 1986, that was seen as a racially bias, expensive, and unfair legislation from the Reagan Administration 's “War on Drugs” from the mid 1980s ().
In order to qualify for assistance, people must be: working for low wages or working part-time, unemployed, receiving welfare or other public assistance payments, elderly, homeless, or disabled with low-income (para 3). “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets the rules for SNAP, but individual states run the program. The USDA also provides all the funding for the actual food benefits, while states are responsible for about half the cost of running the program,” (Cancio para 3). Since the state and the federal governments are paying for this program, people should be screened for drugs to prove they are not breaking the federal law about drug use. Illegal drug use is becoming a big issue in today’s society, therefore, most employers have started drug testing before
How are the messages the same? How are they different? How is the use of visual imagery the same or different? “In June of 1971 President Nixon officially declares a war on drugs, identifying drug abuse as public enemy number one. This declaration lead to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in July 1973.”
I think some of the drug laws that are enforced are ridiculous, for instance in the move that we watched in class stated that people are receiving mandatory life sentences. In someone cases because of the drug laws a person can’t get below a 20year sentencing. I agree with you, the system is not fair at all. If you are caught with drugs, no matter the form or type the rules need to be the same for everyone. I think that goes back to the war on drugs, and how because this was not happening it became a drug war (destruction of human life).
Welfare should be given where it is need. One argument for not drug testing is that welfare is a cross walk that provides support and relief for those with true need. It is intended to revive individuals to get back on there own feet but not to have a long term relationship with the government and feeds off of it’s dependency. A second argument for not allowing drug test to be done is that parents will not be able to support for their children. Over 50% of the students attending a public school from the Pre-K to 12th grade in the state of North Carolina are either receiving free or reduced lunch.
How do you think the average American feels when he pays taxes to the government, just to know that it is going to people who use the money to buy drugs? According to Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, Kansas, Tennessee, and Arizona only 10% of people receiving welfare are getting caught using drugs, the reason we only catch a small amount is the state government tells the recipients when they are drug testing them. In the technology we have today we can tell if a person is on drugs by three ways one way is urine, another way is blood and the last way is hair. These ways to drug test recipients are all efficient and effective. The most effective way is if you use hair to see if someone is using drugs you can usually tell for about 9 days it also depends on what drug they are using.
Working individuals are required to perform these drug tests in order to maintain employee standards for their given company (Besonen). Professional sports teams, the military, and many other institutions enforce drug testing to their employees (Besonen). In theory welfare recipients are basically employees of the state government in terms that they receive their funds, so the standards have reasonable regards to back them up
In today’s society drugs are seen is bad and un-ethical. However, it is just the perspective on how everyone views society. If we are told something is wrong, and see someone doing it, you are more likely to be the one to “point the finger.” Yes, drug legalization sounds horrible and of course it would be considered un-ethical but this is what we need to change.
Thirty-five percent of Americans recieve help from welfare every day, and if we drug test them that number would suddenly drop. Some individuals claim that drug testing would help individuals by putting them into treatment; however, there are several reasons why drug testing would not help recipients. While drug testing could recognize the individuals who need help, problems would be caused such as impacts on the person, the cost, and other impacts such as on children and poverty levels. I A. First, drug testing will cause problems with the money people are receiving. If the test is positive the recipient will have reduced income and they may not get any income at all (US Department of Health and Human Services 8).
The question came up whether it is fair to judge a whole system just because some people abuse it? The response was you are not judging the whole system. What you are trying to do is make the system more trustworthy. By drug testing you are rewarding the good participants by making it easier for them to get their benefits. By getting rid of bad participants it will