What is my position on drug testing welfare recipients to receive their benefits - Research Paper Example

?What is my position on drug testing welfare recipients to receive their benefits? To Pee or not to Pee, That is the Question? My position on whetherwelfare recipients should be drug tested to receive their benefits is that I am for drug testing under the right circumstances but with the given evidence, it is just not financially responsible to do so. I came to this conclusion during my research by reading reports in journals, case studies, online articles, and a face to face interview with Dr. Rhodes, a biology professor with J. Sargent Reynolds community college. The reason I find this research important is that I see this topic discussed in the news, classroom, social media sites, and even in everyday conversation. Also this topic affects those who are and are not on welfare. Smith, Phillip. Welfare. Digital image. Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Prohibition. N.p., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. In my research I have found to be two sides to this argument “Proponents say testing would help the recipients and protect taxpayers. Opponents argue that the practice is unconstitutional and mean-spirited.” (Vitter 141) Both parties make really convincing arguments and surely drove me crazy trying to choose a side “The proponents of drug testing welfare argue that it is irresponsible for any government to fund people who they know are using drugs” (Chelsea 2). It is true that there are drug addicts everywhere but let us faces the facts; they buy their drugs with their own money and do not depend on any government to finance their addiction. It is therefore illogical for any person on welfare to be addicted to any sort of drugs since they cannot even fend for themselves and instead depend on welfare funds. Governments provide unemployed people with some amount of money to enable them take care of themselves as well as their children. However, it is common that most people on welfare do not use this money well and instead use it on drugs and other activities that are not beneficial at all. Statistics from the Temporary Assistance for the Needy says that around 50% of all people on welfare programs are addicted to drugs. “The results suggested that, contrary to popular opinion, most welfare recipients were not alcohol- or other drugdependent.” (Chelsea 2) it is also shown that out of this population, 75% cannot fend for themselves because of their dependency on drugs. This means that it is because of drugs that almost 40% of all people in welfare programs are on this programs. “It is therefore illogical for governments and other nongovernmental organizations to give out money to these same people to continue with their lifestyle” (Debate club 11). This is the reason why most people propose that before anyone enters a welfare program, they need to be tested to ensure that we are not funding drug addicts to continue with their addiction problems. Most politicians and other stakeholders argue that if this system is put in place, not only will most of the drug addicts stop due to financial constraints, they will have to so that they can get a chance to get into the program. This is therefore a long-term strategy to reduce drug abuse in the US. Debate club, “a meeting of the sharpest minds on the days most important topics”, 6 Match . 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2013 When this matter got to the senate, it was an arguable issue and most proponents argued that aid has to be provided based on reciprocal obligation. Reaction to the result from tested prisoners which showed that “Welfare-receiving arrestees were more likely to test positive for benzodiazepines (16 percent vs. 7 percent,/? < 0.01) and opiates (13 percent vs. 6 percent, p < 0.05)” (Yacoubian, 143)This was aThis means that whenever aid is given, there has to be some obligation by the person receiving this kind of help. “In West Virginia, delegate CraigBlair wants all welfare recipients to undergo drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare, unemployment compensation,” (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 1)This has to apply to drug users who are beneficiaries of welfare programs. They have to realize that as much as they cannot provide for themselves, they have an obligation to ensure that they use the money they get from welfare programs responsibly. A good example given by one of the senators is that the US government would not fund any nation that is known to be associated with terrorist since it would be seen as if they are funding terrorists. The same principle is applicable here. “In Arizona, Sen. Russell Pearcelast month proposed a bill to test TANF recipients for drugs as a way to balance the state budget” (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 1)The government cannot continue funding drug addicts yet the same government is out to ensure that we live in a drug free nation. The US government has to live by example and one of the ways to do that is to ensure that it does not fund anyone who will use the same money on drugs. Governments cannot fund terrorists in any way. Smith, Phillip. Welfare. Digital image. Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Prohibition. N.p., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013 With the expiry of the unemployment bill in the early days of 2012, it is time for the people as well as the government to consider coming up with logical laws and rules. “As of July 1, all welfare recipients in Florida will have to take drug tests” (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 1)These rules have to consider all aspects of this very crucial issue and by so doing, all stake holders have to consider all the points of view. For example, one of the major arguments that opposes of this topic argue on is that having a drug test on all the welfare beneficiaries is a very expensive process and would cost the government more than it would cost them paying all the beneficiaries. This is indeed true and I totally agree with this at testing all beneficiaries of welfare programs would be expensive but let’s look at it this way, how much does the US spend to fight terrorists and drug dealers?, it is a large amount of money. The reason the government is willing to spend so much is that the overall future outcome of such process is far much more than that of not doing so. Spending a lot on testing beneficiaries for drugs would ensure that there are a reduced number of drug users. Reducing the number of drug users with the slightest percentage means a lot to the economy and so it is not costly for the government to spend a lot of money in testing welfare beneficiaries. In 2011, an interview was conducted to find out if there was any kind of relationship between welfare money and the rate at which beneficiaries take drugs. Pregnant women are no exception and were given one warning “You must detox from methadone or I will throw you in jail for the rest of your pregnancy” (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 1)People who neighbor drug beneficiaries were interviewed on various noticeable lifestyles that these people lived. Many people explained that most of the beneficiaries waited for the money eagerly and would immediately start using it the moment it sets in. They recorded that on the payday, there were high rates of drug use as compared to any other day and maintained that they were in constant debts that they only settled the moment they received their pay. Their children were neglected and would receive almost nothing. This shows that a high number of beneficiaries use the money for drugs and that their use is very high on days when they are paid. It therefore has no positive impact on their lives but instead acts as a tool to worsen their situation. Taxpayers who work hard for their money fund welfare organizations. At the end, the money in welfares is distributed to several people who are unable to support themselves. One of the conditions for most employment opportunities is that one has to be tested and proved to have no drug related issue. “One provision in every renewed welfare reform effort should be to require recipients to undergo random drug tests as a condition of receiving benefits” (Vitter 1)It would therefore be ironical for those who work to be tested for drugs and those who do not work but receive the money not to be tested for drugs. This is not fair at all to the person who is working. If the working class is tested for drugs to ensure that they work in a drug free environment, why would people who depend on them for survival become an exception and in the end use, their hard earned money to purchase drugs . This is completely unacceptable and is very unfair to the working class. It should therefore be clear that not anyone who is into drugs should benefit from any welfare program. “Drug testing ensures that welfare truly helps those in need” (Vitter 1) Debate club, “a meeting of the sharpest minds on the days most important topics”, 6 match . 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2013 In my research, I was able to interview Dr. Rhodes. He is an expert in environmental issues and was keen to explain to me some of the reasons why this move would be very beneficial to the country. He started our conversation by explaining to me that “people on welfare did not have any democratic right to be funded rather it is a practice that the government has put in place to ensure that they do not get involved in various dangerous activities such as drugs”. It is however bad that as much as the government has tried, some of these people are not putting this money into the right place but are instead using the money on drugs and some other unnecessary addictions. The same people fall sick and have to go to hospitals from where they are treated by taxpayer’s money. This is very unfair not only to the government to the taxpayer. Dr. Rhodes goes further and explains that introducing any kind of test on these individuals will ensure that there are a reduced number of drug addicts, as they will have no source of income to fund their bad behavior. This will also discourage laziness and in the end, the nation will have achieved some goals. Dr. Rhodes is therefore of the opinion that” no government should fund any kind of drug addiction problem and welfare beneficiaries are no exception”. I left his office satisfied and knew that there was much sense on testing welfare beneficiaries for drugs than not. In my conclusion on this very crucial topic, it is evident that there is a lot of sense in testing every beneficiary of a welfare program for drugs. My final stand on this issue is that all beneficiaries of welfare programs should be screened to ensure that none of them is addicted to any form of drug. This will ensure that the beneficiaries of such programs productively use the money spent by the government. I came to this conclusion after conducting several researches on articles and having a face on face interview with Dr. Rhodes an environmental specialist who has greatly contributed too many environmental issues. Work cited Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly.” States consider drug testing for welfare recipients”. February 23, 2009. Web. 1 March. Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly.” Welfare recipients in Florida must take drug tests under new law.”. June 6, 2011. Web. 1 March 2013. Chelsea Kiene. “Welfare Drug Tests Sought By New Hampshire GOP”. Huffingtonpost. USA. October 2011. Web. 28/03/2013. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/welfare- drug-tests-new-hampshire_n_2542145.html> Debate Club. “A meeting of the sharpest minds”. Usnews. USA. October 2010.web. 28/03/2013. < http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs> Vitter, David. “Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs” (la-1). Washington, D.C: Distributed by the Committee for Citizen Awareness, 2002. 11/18/2011. Web. 1 March 2013. Yacoubian, G. S, R. J. Peters, Blake J. Urbach, and Regina J. Johnson. "Comparing Drug Use between Welfare-Receiving Arrestees and Non-Welfare-Receiving Arrestees." Journal of Drug Education. 32.2 (2002). Print. Read More