More handpicked essays just for you.
An Argument Against Drug Testing Welfare Recipients.
An Argument Against Drug Testing Welfare Recipients.
An Argument Against Drug Testing Welfare Recipients.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Randy E. Bartnett claims that “drug laws cause more harm to addicts and society than drugs themselves.” According to Bartnett, “Drug prohibition makes drugs so expensive, the addicts trying to crime in order to obtain money to buy them. Furthermore, drug prohibition is unfair in that it punishes users for committing a “crime” that has no victim.” Some people might agree with the idea that legalizing drugs would benefit addicts because then they would not be able to obtain drugs so easily.
If drugs were legal in the Untied States and people were educated on their affects, the drug world would eventually eradicate
That is not what welfare should be used for though, it should be used as an extra last resort support system for an individual until they can get back on their feet. This is why there are so many people on the street and in homeless shelters, because the government is giving them free money. This is why it should in the end be up to private organizations and charity. This is because if it is a small group of people working with the less fortunate they can get to know them individually and try to help them off of welfare or the support that they are getting. Granted there are some things that the less fortunate should have the opportunity to have and that is health care.
They did not look at drug usage as a big deal as we do
I agree with this assertion. I believe that there are many Americans that have learned to “cheat” the system. If the government made cutbacks and shrinked the pool of welfare recipients, than it would be less likely that certain Americans could continue cheating the system. This idea will most likely give everyone a fair chance to find a job. There would be almost no reason to have welfare if all Americans were compensated fairly for their work.
This is not a waste of money, and should instead be considered a responsibility of the federal and state governments. Employers who test their workers foot the bill for the expenses of drug screening. Therefore, the federal government should pay the expenses of drug testing their welfare recipients, since most people on welfare receive assistance in place of a job. Also, supporters of drug testing would much rather pay to make sure people are living productive, and healthy lifestyles (“The Pros and Cons…” para 3). It is unfair for those who work hard everyday to support their families, to have to support those who are not taking the necessary steps to be
Anybody who is on drugs needs help to get off of them, and the welfare recipients would receive free help. The taxpayers that work for their money do not want to see their taxes go somewhere of no use. Welfare recipients that have been regularly drug-tested drug usage goes down. Drug testing welfare recipients would be beneficial to both the taxpayers and the welfare recipients. The taxpayers would feel more secure that their payments are not going to waste, and the welfare recipients
Welfare recipients should not be required to complete a drug test if other people receiving government
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).
One of those reasons being, drug testing welfare recipients could waste taxpayer’s money. The government would use tax money to administer drug test (Cunha, par. 3). Many taxpayers do not feel like they are obligated to pay for a person’s drug habit (“Editorial: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Doesn’t Add Up,” par. 1). In Tennessee, only one person to the 800 who applied for government assistance tested positive for drugs. In Florida, during four months of drug testing , only 2.6 % of welfare recipients tested positive, which was under Florida’s illegal use of 8%, which meant that fewer people using government assistance used drugs.
According to statisticsbrain.com, their are 110,489,000 Americans who are on welfare and more and more Americans are applying for welfare each year. Many Americans rely on welfare for their families and for individual needs. Welfare recipients should not be permitted to take a drug test because drug testing is expensive for states and the country, drug testing is unconstitutional and welfare recipients do not do drugs any more than people who do not receive welfare. Drug testing is expensive and cost states a lot of money one drug test cost averages to about 42 dollars, not including the cost for equipment and hiring people to conduct the test. States start programs that require welfare recipients to take a drug test and the programs end up costing them up to 1 million or, even more, depending on the number of welfare recipients that reside in that state.
The blog , Announcing Between the Two Worlds Conference posted on January 30, 2015, written by David Taylor is about an interesting conference coming up the weekend of June 11-14, 2015. Over time an uneasy relationship has developed between the contemporary art world and the church world. Taylor notes in his blog, “Not only are these kinds of (contemporary) artist mostly unknown to church leaders, they and their work cause them to regard the world of contemporary art with quizzical indifference, frustration, and even disdain. On the other, many artists lack any meaningful experience with the contemporary church and are mostly ignorant of her mission” (Taylor, 2015)
Drug testing has become a mandatory task in nearly every workplace, no employer would like to employ personnel with unacceptable habits of drug addiction. Employee drug testing is not about catching employees using drugs, it’s about preventing the use of drugs at the work place in order to maintain a healthy environment. Drug testing is a moral obligation and responsibility to keep the workplace safe for all the employees, customers and other related personnel. Common reasons employers implement drug testing is to- • Deter employees from abusing alcohol and drugs • Prevent hiring individuals who use illegal drugs • Be able to identify early and appropriately refer employees who have drug and/or alcohol problems • Provide a safe workplace
First thing I would like to implement is where I would recommend that all offenders placed on probation and parole would have a baseline drug test. Then those with a drug abuse problem or history would have mandatory substance abuse counseling. This is because approximately two thirds of probationers can be characterized as alcohol or drug involved offenders (Treatment, 2005). I believe that this would help to lower the recidivism rate because the offenders would no longer have negative habits that take away from their monthly finances. It would also take away the need to commit crimes to pay for their drug or alcohol habits.
