Argumentative Essay On Drug Testing

United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U.S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful. In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States lawmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a

Author Ilan Wurman argues in this his publication, that drug testing to apply for welfare violates the fourth amendment of the constitution so changes must be made to the current system. A failed testing program in Florida required all applicants to complete a drug screening test before receiving benefits and the cost of the tests are paid for by the applicant, but reimbursed if the test results are negative. Wurman concludes by stating that suspicion less drug testing of government assistance recipients in

Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. Many people have argued that mandatory drug testing is a violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment grants you the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, otherwise known as a person's right to privacy. However, employers have the right to know whether or not the people working under them are stable to do their jobs. Indeed, for safety of all the humans randomly drug testing is the best way to maintain the quality of the employees.

There is a big question floating in the air around a lot of people today,

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients To test or not to test has been has been the question at hand for many states that are dealing with whether or not to pass the law that welfare recipients should or should not be drug tested in order to receive assistance from the government. Florida was the first state to mandate the law in 2011 and thereafter twenty four other states in the last year have also passed this law in our own state of Oklahoma being one of them. Although alcohol is legal it is abused far more than marijuana or hard core drugs, According to the 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism the differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant. Although some states have decided to pass the law for welfare recipients in order receive government assistance, I believe it’s ineffective to drug test these welfare recipients in order to receive their benefits. Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include the Women, Infants, and Children Program, which is referred to as WIC, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families commonly known as TANF and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Drug testing welfare recipients is negative because drug tests performed on welfare

The process of drug testing individuals who are applying or receiving welfare benefits has recently become the focus of a widely spread controversy. Florida, the first state to pass the law, now requires all individuals applying for public assistance to undergo drug testing. The state of Kentucky, among others, have considered following this trend. State lawmakers hope to prevent the squandering of taxpayer dollars on drugs by proposing similar guidelines. Alabama’s states representative Kerry Rich clearly affirmed his state’s position on the matter, “I don’t think the taxpayers should have to help fund somebody’s drug habit” (qtd. in Time).

Poverty has been a growing problem in many cities around the United States. Because of this growing problem,many state governments currently give welfare benefits to people that may not be able to provide for themselves. However, there are some some taxpayers that object to these benefits being given out. It is because they imagine that the people receiving these benefits will spend the money on drugs instead of what the benefits are intended for. It is because of this thinking that since 2009 seven states have enacted legislature to drug test those receiving government assistance. By drug testing citizens receiving government assistance, the government is unfairly assuming that welfare recipients are using their money that they receive on drugs. There are people arguing for both sides, I for one am against drug testing for government assistance.

Over the past few years, there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not those who test positive for drugs should be able to receive welfare. It was an argument that flooded social media, arguments filling comments with opinions. It is a subject that continues to be discussed within our peer groups, our communities, and our states. This paper will discuss the opinions of individual’s within the country, the beneficial factors of drug testing welfare recipients as well as the unbeneficial factors, as well as who decides if drug testing welfare recipients goes into effect or not.

In today’s America, government aid is highly depended on. The US government has spent $498 billion dollars this year on welfare alone. The state of Tennessee has an average of 250,000 residents on welfare and has $3 billion dollars this year alone. To help cut costs and help tax payers, 36 states, including Tennessee, have proposed a bill to drug test all welfare recipients. Since the beginning of the year, the welfare rate has jumped 7 percent while at the same time, the welfare funds are drying up. Tennessee funds have dropped 17.5 percent, which comes out to be about $215.3 million dollars this year. State lawmakers have proposed that if drug users on welfare are

The article, “States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare” stated that in three dozen sates proposed drug testing for the people that are on welfare. However, people say that the tax dollars given to them are not being misused and that it’s promoting stereotypes about the poor. the article says that in Florida, people that receive welfare have to pay for their own drug tests. Also, it says that people argued that it was unreasonable to drug test those on welfare and that it was an act of search and seizure. It’s noted that drug tests are getting more and more required for getting jobs. Ellen Brandom, a state representative in Missouri said, “Working people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them that

United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U.S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful. In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States lawmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry.

The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing are excessive and only a small percentage of employees are actually found to be substance users. Drug testing in the work place has a negative effect on productivity; contrary to what was originally intended. It actually decreases productivity instead of improving it. Drug testing causes a feeling

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

It seems that drugs have become a major epidemic within teenagers in the last few years. There is only so much that can be done to try and eliminate drug use, while not dramatically changing anything in the community. Drug testing the district’s student athletes provides many reasons that it is a worthwhile expense. Lawyers, Mark Vetter and Daniel Chanen, stated in the Sports Law Institute Newsletter “First, student-athletes were the leaders of the drug culture” (Vetter and Chanen ¶3). This simple statement proves that athletes need to be drug tested; it will improve multiple circumstances within the district and the lives of athletes. Drug testing student athletes at the high school level is a step every school district needs to take in order to improve their schools, and the students’ lifestyles despite the high price tag on these tests.

Imagine walking into work and seeing a new co-worker acting weird, or precisely showing signs of drug use and to have no clue about it. Is it not that person’s right to know that he/she will be sharing the same environment as someone who frequently practices drug use? On the other hand, The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes that addictions to drug and alcohol are considered ‘disabilities,’ meaning those who practice drug and alcohol use are in their right to not be discriminated or judged based on their ‘disability’ and instead accommodated. This issues remains controversial to this day since every organization or individual has its own situation that emphasis drug tests and their repercussions differently. Some organizations just simply cannot be bothered to spend time and money on drug tests while others have a hard time drawing the line between what are the ethical approaches to positive drug tests. Currently, random testing of current staff in an organization without an approved written drug policy is not legal and will not be upheld by courts in Canada. This was settled by the Supreme Court in June of 2013. However, pre-employment testing of job candidates should be allowed in the workplace and be upheld by courts at any time as it is the utilitarian practice for any organization and its stakeholders.