Should welfare recipients receive drug testing?

Since welf be programs started in the 60s, a reoccurring pattern has been seen in to a greater extent cases than one. Fraudulent activity and pickings advantage of the system has been happening for way too long in our society. A simple medicine prove should be administered to social welf atomic number 18 recipients if they front to vex the wellbeings that are offered to them. If a nonher(prenominal) citizens much(prenominal) as the ones in the running(a) class are held accountable to be administered a medicate screening, those who would interchangeable to receive government assistance should be held to the same standard.The abolition of the entitlement horticulture found in Ameri croupe society will ultimately benefit the Countries economy and character. While the concept of this practice is non to stereotype against the dismount class, it should be seen as a mandatory evaluation to those who would like to bear on benefitting from the governments sand up. The goa l of medicate sorting wellbeing recipients is not to revoke their privileges, it is simply to reform the system of social welfare and wanton legitimate that those who truly indigence assistance are having their needs met.I.) The controversy of how numerous a(prenominal) welfare recipients tested for substance abuse has been proven to be skewed.A.) The the Statesn Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) finds that tho 2.6 percent of welfare recipients in Florida instruct tested negative for substance abuse. The state of Florida dose tested 4,086 applicants. provided 108 individuals tested positive, however, it is obvious that numerous recipients delay application call(a)able to the concomitant that they know they will necessitate their benefits stripped because of the positive results. (Bragdon) 1.) As a result of the Temporary Assistance for necessitous Families (TANF) act, recipients would be essential to suffer out of pocket to be administered a urinalysis, and would be re imbursed if depicted, further approve up the idea of skewed evidence as recipients would be much more likely to not spend their own currency on a test that they would be sure to fail.With al virtually $58,000 spent reimbursing dose test fees and total savings from dose- link up denials at $1.8 million, the drug test indispensableness is saving Florida valueationpayers $30.64 for every $1 spent. 2.) The U.SSubstance Abuse and Mental wellness Services appointed a national survey in 2009, terminal that 8.7 percent of the population over the age of 12 proves to use adulterous drugs. With such a prominent amount of the population being link to the abuse of various substances, it can be very well conceive that the reason for such a miniscule amount of recipients failing the administered tests is callable to the fact that many another(prenominal) of the users did not in fact, exhaust the test at all.3.) The results of the ACLU study fail to investigate how many of the tes ted welfare recipients that passed the drug testing would have tested positive on other controlled substances such as ethical drug pills that many defend to be a bogus positive. According to a study conducted by the Center for affection Control and Prevention, 48.5% of Americans take at least one form of ethical drug drug, and a similar study, the National Survey on medicate use and Health concluded that at least an estimated 2.4 million Americans abuse prescription pills daily. Also, of public assistance recipients treated for substance abuse in 2008, the most common primary substance of abuse was alcohol (37 percent of those treated). (Bragdon) II.) Drug testing welfare recipients is classified as UnconstitutionalA.) The Supreme motor lodges Special Needs Doctrine can be utilise to classify the act of requiring welfare recipients to pass a scheduled or random drug testing as constitutional (NCSL) 1.) The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions requires a different analysis under which conditioning welfare on consent to testing may very well be a constitutional condition, the eleventh circuit panel has done much explore to prove this theory. (Wurman) 2.) The Germaneness of a bill of legislature is simply the pertinence of the add. This can be directly correlated to the issue of whether or not a recipient is compliant when asked to be administered a drug test.(NCSL)3.) In 1981, Lyng v. foreign Union, took place in court due to the Food Stamp passage that stated, No household shall occasion eligible to participate in the fodder stamp program during the time that any member of the household is on strike or shall increase the allotment of food stamps that it was receiving already because the income of the contact lens member has decreased. Despite the going on strike being a right in the first amendment, the Courtheld that the law did not have a substantial impact on any fundamental vex and that citizens participating in striking were directly aff ecting their ability to make an income, much like drug abuse does.Therefore, leaving loop holes in the defense that drug testing welfare recipients would be infringing upon their fourth amendment. 4.) When this issue was appointed to a panel of judges, they summarized a quote from case of Dolan v. urban center of Tigard, basically stating that when the benefit does have a relationship to the right, the government may, perhaps, deduce the benefit. Meaning that assistance is not a humane right, rather a benefit that is offered by the government, allowing them to deny access to the benefit, if need be. If recipients cannot pass the administered drug test, their rights are not being infringed upon, due to the fact that welfare benefits are not a constitutional right themselves. B.) Most positions in the operative class require a drug test to be administered.1.) two sounding class jobs, private sector jobs and welfare recipients are receiving funds from the government, the only dif ference is that two are working for that coin, while the other is get atting assistance provided to them from the tax payers. The most recognizable claim against requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test is discrimination against the poor. However, in many (not all) jobs, in revise to apply for indisputable positions, a drug test is administered, although that is hardly ever looked at as unconstitutional when corpo roll authorizeership are held accountable for their actions when accepting public funds. It is only fair that citizens relying on assistance from the government and society should be held to the same standard of others when receiving process that they couldnt acquire on their own. (Wurman)C.) war on Drugs1.) While the fight on drugs is to be seen as constitutional by many undereducated good deal, despite millions of tax payer dollars going to waste to fund wars, a simple drug test to prevent the never ending club of taking advantage of tax paying citize ns is seen as unconstitutional due to the fact that the profit of the war on drugs is much greater than the supervise of welfare expense.2.) In 1980 50,000 people were in custody for drug related offences, many of them minor(ip) charges. While arresting deal of people, atthe get down of yet again, tax payers, is constitutional, the monitoring of welfare is such a minor issue in comparison, when these citizens are being assisted, with only the request to agree to a simple test to prove that government money isnt funding a drug addiction. (cdc gov)3.) While for obvious reasons, unpaid drug use is illegal, and remains to be one of the biggest, money and time consuming issues in our society. It is an extreme contradiction to agree that drugs should be illegal, but to think that welfare recipients should not have to be tested to receive government benefits. This issue directly relates to the issue of Germaneness stated earlier. There is obviously a prominent reason to administer r ecipients drug tests when they are receiving aid from society, correlating drug users productivity toIII.) Tax payer money protected due to the abolition of improper use of government fundsA.) Welfare should be seen as a temporary aid use to sustain users get rearward on their feet in times of struggle, not a intent style choice.1.) It is undoubtedly certain that not only with this issue, but anything, degeneration and abuse occur. Often times welfare is looked at as more of a tool to purchase unnecessary items such as cigarettes, and recreational drugs. While that is not the case with all recipients, it is often abused. Compared to the benefits welfare provides, a simple drug test seems detrimental to make into a burden, particularly when many states supply reimbursement to recipients who pass the drug test. It is often questioned why psyche who is getting assistance would be so concerned with taking a drug test, if they werent in fact doing drugs.2.) In 35 states welfare rec ipients receive more than minimum wage, in 13 states recipients receive more than $15 an hour. Annually thither is nearly 1.3 meg federal tax dollars invested into welfare. In Mississippi a non-working recipient can receive as much as $16,984 in benefits, even more shockingly, in the district of Columbia one can receive as much as $43,099. One would be nave to say that when faced with the choice of working hard for that kind of money, or receiving a handout, that the average citizen would choose to work. The only way to decrease the level of dependence often found in the welfare system is tomake work requirements stricter and to require random drug screenings to monitor fraudulent activity within the industry.3.) To prevent receiving benefits from becoming not only a mindset, but a lifestyle, welfare recipients should be required to do a number of community service hours if they are not currently working while being assisted. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a very self-explanatory foundation, they offer grants to families that need temporary help and advocate employment while receiving benefits. The Government must do all that they can to prevent welfare from becoming a mindset, but more of what its intention was to be, a tool used for citizens to get back on their feet when they have failed to reach their potential.B.) Money from denied drug tests will be reimbursed back into the state1.) Around 1.8 million dollars will be saved from unlawful uses of welfare benefits. This not only forces failed recipients to provide and work for themselves, which will eventually lead them to stop relying on welfare until they truly need it, but it allows open recipients to be granted all the benefits that welfare has to offer them, without the criticism from tax payers due to the reputation that welfare has received due to the fraudulent demeanour that has been failed to be recognized by necessary drug screenings. (Bragdon)2.) On average, a welfare recipi ent costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants wont get, saving the state around $2,680-$3,350 per month, which will in turn be put into important factors in the economic cycle. (Bragdon) C.) Drug tests as an incentive to end drug abuse1.) Having to pass a random drug test could prove to be served as an incentive to welfare recipients to terminate masses of drug abuse issues.2.) Government assistance is something that should only be used when needed, if a recipient truly needs the benefits of welfare, they will recognize that a drug test should be administered in order for them to acquire the help that is being offered. Many may look at this prospect as being a guideline to keep them outside(a) from drugs, and use the money they are being given for necessities until they no longer need it, and become successful members of the working class, which will give new applicants the chance to receive benefits that they truly deserve.3.) Recipients who fail dru g tests and have their benefits suspended for a certain amount of time will be more thanlikely to run for and learn from their struggle, making them much more likely to stay away from drug abuse.4.) With the saved money from denied welfare benefits, tax payers earnings can be used to uphold much rectify state run rehabilitation facilities, which in turn can aid the relation between drug abuse and welfare benefits.IV.) The war on pauperisation and its effect on AmericaA.) The war on destitution was a legislature enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson, in response to the poverty rate being around 19 percent. Johnson voiced the war on poverty in his first State of the Union Address. 1.) The goal of the war on poverty was to completely abolish poverty by funding programs that back up the poor during the 60s. This eventually created Medicaid and Medicare. What this program did was create the roots of todays welfare system, and realistically stagger the work ethic of America.The reas on that the War on Poverty faces such criticisms is because it was enacted during a time period when the poverty line had just risen, rather than fallen, leading critics to believe that it was only delivered to pass welfare programs. The start of these programs triggered the growth of our government and the peoples dependence on it, allowing the government to be even more controlling. B.) What the war on poverty ultimately did1.) Due to the surplus of attention paid to subdued Americans during this time, it is said to have been the cause of the popular idea of the white Americans damage the bill for African Americans. Whites during this time thought of the Great society programs as handouts for minorities that didnt deserve their hard earned money. This attitude is reflected into todays society as well.2.) Since the war on poverty, welfare has grown a whopping 19% in the past decade which is more than it has in history. Since the start of the War on Poverty, the government has spen t around $19.8 trillion dollars in welfare programs, which is more than all three wars combined. Since 1969 around 2 million people collected food stamps, whereas around 47 million people do today. Since the start of welfare programs, fraudulent activity has compete a large role in the system.There always has been welfare recipients that take advantage of the benefits given to them, however, ifthey were drug tested and what they were spending tax payers money on was monitored, the effects of the War on Poverty could eventually be reversed and the spirit and worth ethic that was established in America will be in place again one day. A simple drug test is a small request in turn for the generous benefits that are received by millions of recipients daily. In order for our economy to thrive like it once did, there needs to be a strict monitoring on welfare program spending to not only conk out our economy, but the citizens in it. With less people taking advantage of the welfare system due to positive drug tests, the only people that would be benefiting from the system are the ones that truly need it.V.) The Entitlement culture in America A.) Entitlement vs. Entrepreneurship1.) The most notable quality in the character of America is the Countries ability to breed innovative minds that benefit the economy. For as long as America has been around, the core of society has been centered around entrepreneurship. With all of the advancements made from entrepreneurs, the misspending of government funds is only taking back a step in society that entrepreneurship took. There are many factors that could effect this, but the main component that strips America of its sense of work ethic is the welfare system. By saying this, it does not mean that there arent thousands of families truly in need of government assistance, it is stating that the society of many welfare recipients have made themselves comfortable with not trying to better their economic well being.