the recent past, there has been introduction o...
the recent past, there has been introduction of legislation y state legislators
that require individuals who get public assistance, as well as welfare, public
housing, and Medicaid to get tested for drugs. Such bills have been introduced
on the basis of a belief that some individuals who receive welfare from the
States use drugs, hence spoiling tax payers’ money (Bloom 34). As a result,
there has been numerous debates in relation to the constitutionality of this
act, with proposers and those who oppose the bill establishing solid reasons to
back their claims. This paper looks at the different aspects of the
drug-testing among welfare recipients, with the aim of describing the
constitutionality as well as morality of the bill.
to Newell (209), the drug-testing welfare laws are wrong, unconstitutional, as
well as shortsighted. These laws deliberately isolate the poor from the
society, with the assertion that they possess less of the right to privacy
merely because they cannot make ends to meet. Florida was the first state to
pass as well as implement this bill that requires every welfare applicant to be
tested for drug, prior to giving them basic assistance. Four months following
its implementation, a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Florida, referring the
act as being unconstitutional. In 2013, among the 4,086 applicants for TANF in
Florida, just 108 people tested positive. This stands for a mere 2.6% of all
the applicants. Bloom asserts that the law by the state of Florida is absurd,
taking into account the amount of money that was spent in carrying out the
exercise, that is, $118,140 in just four months.
to a survey conducted by Manpower Information, Inc., psychiatric disorders
among employees in the place of work occurs due to a variety of causes, one of
them being misuse of drugs. Research by Manpower Information, Inc. illustrates
that employers are relatively unable to monitor their employees in terms of drug
use, and most problems are usually discovered when the problem has escalated.
From the findings presented from twenty-five organizations in 2008, one-sixth
of the recipients were reported to be using illicit substances over the past
objective of testing welfare applicants for drugs is a way of assuring those
who contribute in paying taxes that their money does not get wasted on
individuals who subscribe for the welfare programs by the state, and goes ahead
to use the assistance they receive for purchasing of drugs (Cohen 44). Drug
testing ensures those in need are truly helped by the welfare. States have
proposed drug testing of recipients and applicants of public welfare benefits
since the reform of federal welfare in 1996.The Congress is in the race to find
a common ground on how to extend unemployment benefits within the shortest time
possible, carrying out drug test on the recipients of the aforementioned
benefits promises to be a topic ready for compromise. However, the entire
process is wrong because even those people who apply for the funds are as well
issue of testing welfare recipients for illicit drugs presents a moral dilemma
towards the government, where it is faced with the need of making sure that tax
paid by Americans is put in the right use, as well as the need to help those
individuals who are in dire need of the funds to cater for their basic needs.
According to Dodie, “even though a few welfare recipients are struggling with
the problems of illicit drug use as well as alcohol abuse, there is need for
substance abuse prevention along with treatment services among the groups that
are exposed to high risks” (56).
to National Conference for State's Legislature, the federal rules of this bill
allow the testing for drugs among the people who are applying for assistance
from the welfare programs by various states. This approach is particularly used
for screening the applicants so as to determine who will receive assistance
from the welfare program kitty. Nevertheless, most of the proposals by the
states to implement these proposals have been met with a lot of resistance,
hence resulting to many lawsuits between individuals or organizations and the
there are cases where individuals who have applied for the welfare programs
ended up using the funds to buy illicit drugs, these cases are very minimal.
This is not morally upright as there are some other individuals who need the
funds to carry on with their daily lives. Even though the program had very good
motives, having the interests of those who direly need the funds allocated to
welfare programs for the right reasons, the logic behind it defeats its
purpose. This questions the constitutionality of the program as it is the right
of all the Americans who need assistance
and apply for the funds, regardless of whether they use illicit drugs or not
program of testing welfare recipients for drugs ought to be dropped due to its
inefficiency in ensuring that the government is putting the public funds in the
appropriate use. Different states have spent millions of dollars in conducting
the exercise, yet very few welfare applicants have been found to test positive
for illicit drugs. For instance, the state of Florida spent a lot of taxpayers
funds in executing the procedure of drug-testing, funds which would otherwise
have been put into much useful projects by the state (Lucas 112). Therefore,
whereas the program is an essential one, it is not the most appropriate as it
has led to wastage of public funds.
is unconstitutional to test welfare applicants for drugs. Szyperski, in his
book, refers to a number of sections from the U.S. Constitution in elaborating
why he thinks that the approach is unconstitutional (78). He develops well-argued
points in explaining why the testing of applicants is not moral or
constitutional. All Americans have the right to receive welfare benefits if
need be. The unconstitutionality of this program is the reason that will lead
to its failure. Requiring screenings would serve as a key incentive to addicts
to go for assistance so that they can regain their health, make positive
contributions to society and support their families. Screenings would identify
dependency cases and also be coupled with treatment programs to directly
address the common worse problem in the victim’s lives. That is the reason why
legislation is proposed to require drug screenings for unemployment insurance
applicants. A non-invasive written test with an accuracy of 94 percent accuracy
rate would be used for screening. If an applicant is suspected to have used
drugs, then passing a drug test as a condition of benefits would be mandatory.
proposal for this bill started gaining momentum in 2011. The legislation was
then passed by three states in 2011, in 2012 four states enacted laws,
legislation was again passed by two states in 2013, and in 2014 two states has
passed legislation once more, this brings the total number of states that have
taken action to eleven. In 2013, legislation was enacted in Kansas which
required drug testing for recipients and applicants suspected of using drugs.
Utah passed legislation in 2012 requiring applicants to fill a questionnaire
screening for drug usage and legislation was passed by Georgia requiring drug
tests for all applicants for Needy Families as a Temporary Assistance.
Tennessee approved a bill requiring the department to come up with a plan for
abuse of substance testing for applicants while Oklahoma approve a measure which required all TANF applicants
to be screened for drug use.
conclusion, with America facing a national debt in excess of $14 trillion, the
government cannot afford its agencies to carelessly spend tax dollars. With
billions of dollars of the welfare funds being spent on illegal drugs or going
to wrong places, what least we can do is to make sure that federal funds are
being spent in the right manner. There are no doubts that many Americans are
being faced by incredible challenges. With debt at crisis level, a staggering
number of unemployed and an economy on life support we must do a better job
collectively in helping our needy neighbors and being good stewards with means
that are limited. Therefore, common-sense welfare reform, including recipients’
drug testing, is a very imperative step towards the right direction.
Calculate The Price Of Your Order
Total Price After Discount:
Frequently Asked Questions
All our writers are PHD prepared individuals. All the writers have vast experiences in specified fields for example for nursing orders the writers must have (nursing experience and major exposure to healthcare)
We get our articles from PubMed (for medicine orders and nursing) and whatever we can access through Google and scholarly references. We use professional sites and any relatable recent references within ten years.
We have a strict 0% plagiarism policy. All our papers are written from scratch and are properly cited.
Furthermore, we use premium plagiarism checkers to scan all documents before delivery.
The paper you will receive will be 100% original.
Email everything to us at firstname.lastname@example.org. You will receive a confirmation email from the support staff.
First, proceed to place your order then you can attach and send everything else the writer will need via email.
Yes, any alterations will be free of charge as long as they are in line with the initial instructions provided. No "surprises" regarding the price.
Any feedback from her professor will be taken seriously, and the writer (under our terms) will work on all changes without any extra payments (we do not have any hidden charges).
We will conduct a free plagiarism check, chapter by chapter. Editing is free of charge since the writer works hand in hand with an assigned editor.
The account will automatically be created for you by our database. The account only notes your order details and the price for your order, nothing much.