Drug Testing For Workplaces And Government Help

How many people have had an interview for a job, received a call that they were hired, and then heard their future employer say that they will have to do a drug test before they can start this new job? “Although many people think that illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other street drugs became a problem for youth in the 1960’s the truth of the matter is that there has always been a drug problem in the United States when it comes to substance abuse”(testcountry.org). This past summer I had an interview at Russel Stover Candies, when they called to tell me that the position was mine, they then informed me that I would have to pass a drug test before I could officially have the job. Although some jobs and people believe that drug testing in the workplace should take place, many people do not believe in drug testing. Opponents of WDT (Workplace drug testing) argue that the process of drug testing amounts to an unwarranted invasion of a person’s private life and their body. Some people believe that the statement “free consent” is impossible to obtain. Drug testing did not come into play in the United States until the late 1980’s as a part of the Reagan administration. Before that, there was no standard way for jobs, schools, and even sports to drug test employees, students, or athletes. People that had jobs working with heavy machinery or people that worked in the Department of Transportation were mainly the ones getting drug tested. The issues with drug

In 2010, 17.5% of unemployed adults collecting some sort of welfare failed drug tests. In 2011, 23.8% of welfare recipients admitted to using illegal drugs, including marijuana. The problem the United States if facing is that welfare recipients are using the cash they are given to purchase illegal drugs. Many of these people purchasing illegal drugs had prior illegal drug abuse problems and some of these people believe that since they are given this “free” money, they can continue on with these addictions instead of finding the help they need to get back onto their own two feet. Many employers ask all of their job applicants for a drug test to even be considered for the job, so why shouldn’t the government ask the same for people looking

While it is true that there are some jobs that do require a drug test prior to employment, the employees have a choice in the matter. If they do not wish to take a drug test, or if they fail the test, they can choose to find another job. However, by making it mandatory that welfare recipients be drug tested, they do not have a choice. If welfare recipients fail a drug test or refuse to take it, they don’t have the option to find another government to get the assistance that they need. Most welfare recipients are in need of public assistance due to situations that they cannot control. For example, if a single mother of three kids gets laid off due to the harsh economy, at some point, she has no other choice but to ask for help. Eventually, she may have to utilize public assistance that the government has put in place such as food stamps, Medicaid, or welfare. If the government makes drug testing mandatory, the single mother of three has only one choice to make—do whatever the government requires to feed

By drug testing, those who receive welfare are being stereotyped. For example, society is now looking at welfare recipients

Drug abuse is a huge epidemic in America, and we need to come for all angles to try and stop it. One of which can be from the welfare side. Drug testing is thought to decrease drug abuse with people on welfare. If people know that they have to pass a drug test to be able to get money for their necessities, it may encourage them to never use in the first place. It also might help them realize they have a problem and help give them a reason to get clean. This is important because an addict needs something to drive them to want to get clean, and knowing they will not receive government assistance if using can be a huge reason to be clean. Also drug testing will make the state aware and available to help the welfare recipients. The Mayor of New York Rudolph W. Giuliani says, “ Welfare recipients who test positive for drugs would be required to enroll in a drug treatment program or join a waiting list for treatment to keep getting benefits.” In Rhode Island a law bans recipients who fail a drug test from getting welfare for a year, unless they complete a substance abuse treatment successfully. Once they do complete treatment they can reapply after six months. Both of these states are giving people that fail a second chance, and maybe their only chance.

The numbers do not lie—little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in the recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U.S. governmental policy.

Drug testing in the workplace has become a controversial issue, with many believing that the act of drug testing employees is an invasion of privacy and an infringement upon rights. As more and more states legalize Marijuana there is debate whether employees can still be fired for having this “drug” in their system even though the state government, not federal, has allowed the recreational use of the drug. The “War on Drugs” significantly impacted the way employers, and employees alike perceived drug abuse and created a strong push for law enforcement to crack down on drug users. Troops returning from the Vietnam War who used Heroin also had a large impact on the drug testing protocols we see today. This paper will examine the history of drug testing, explore how testing is affected by legalized Marijuana, explore both the affirmation and the opposition to drug testing in the workplace, and conclude with recommendations for possible changes.

Many people want it to stay that way and want the country to grow, not fall to pieces. In order for that to happen, people will have to want to work and want to make their own way. Arizona was one of the states to establish help for those who looked for a welfare check to provide them with drugs. In 2009, they looked to drug test those that were suspected to be drug users only to give them help and put them back on their feet. “Identifying individuals in need of substance abuse treatment. Substance abuse is a problem that affects the whole of society, not just individuals who are abusing substances. Mandatory drug testing helps identify individuals who can benefit from substance abuse treatment so they can receive help and will, according to drug testing advocates, save money in the long-term” (The Pros, 2 ). This allowed them to become a productive member of society again. Even though it takes a large portion of money to do these tests, it saves the country money afterwards, making it a worthy

As Lombardo says, “Many people need to be drug tested in order to have gainful employment and a regular paycheck. If it is a normal part of life for the vast majority of a country’s population, then the system of testing is already in place to add welfare recipients into the regular testing cycle.” Every year local, state, and national government programs offer low-income households the opportunity to make impoverished peoples needs to be met. These welfare systems have a 3% abuse rate where recipients use their benefits for alcohol and illicit drugs. To maintain compliance with program regulations, drug testing would have to be in the

Miriam Webster’s dictionary defines welfare as “aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need or an agency or program through which such aid is distributed” (2004). The welfare program that most people think of is the second definition that distributes cash or food vouchers to those that are less fortunate and require some form of assistance. The question of is it right to require drug testing for recipients will always be a question or morality, it can be construed as a violation of a person’s fourth amendment right in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches” (U.S. Const. amend. IV ), which means a person does not have to fear having their life turned upside down for no apparent reason, and as Celia Goetzl states “A district court struck down the policy on Fourth Amendment grounds”(2013) in reference to Michigan trying to put welfare testing into

In today’s society about 12,800,000 people are supported by government welfare programs for help with their financial necessities. The argument everyone is making nowadays, is whether or not they should be drug testing recipients of welfare. I agree with this strongly because I know that if I were paying taxes on this program I would not want someone going out and abusing this privilege on drugs. People collecting welfare, or other government assistance, should be drug tested because if they are just going to spend money on drugs, they do not need help.

A few believe it is discrimination against the poor, who most often receive these benefits(Pros and cons of welfare drug testing). On the other hand, people are worried about taking the drug test because they will go into deeper poverty. This could also mean that the children in this situation are not going to have their essential needs met. Another reason why people feel like this is a bad idea is because it could cause parents to turn to other illegal activities to receive their drugs (Pros and Cons). The people who oppose the drug testing believe that there will be no repercussions for refusing to take the tests, so what would be the point to taking the test . The individuals who do not agree with this movement believe that “the poor deserve privacy too (81% say drug

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

Literature implies that employee drug use in the workplace may create high costs to firms in the form of lower productivity, increased absences, and an increase in workplace accidents. As a response to these costs, employers have implemented a variety of policies and programs to decrease employee drug use. Educational programs and standards such as “Zero Tolerance” policies, employers have turned to drug testing programs more in the past decades. About 46 percent of American workers report that their employer conducts drug testing, although other sources indicate that 90 percent of Fortune 200 companies use some type of drug testing (Flynn 1999). The factor behind workplace drug

According to Joseph Desjardins and Ronald Duska’s Drug Testing in Employment, administering a drug test before and during employment may be popular but is mostly unnecessary and a