Welfare Testing In America

Welfare Testing In America

“InAmerican politics, money is obviously quite tight—and welfaretesting is incredibly expensive. It involves overseeing everyindividual who participates in the welfare system.” States AustinKeller in the article “Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients: Con”If taxpayers are required to give part of their earnings to peoplewho need assistance, it would only be fair for people on welfare tomeet certain standards to receive assistance, for instance drugtesting. Not only would it give peace of mind to the government butit would also ensure them that benefits are being issued toindividuals who are striving to get back into the workforce, notdepend on assistance over a long time period. Tax paying dollars needbe issued to mothers who are working hard, genuinely trying to makeends meet.

However,this drug testing policy is also a bad policy. There are stereotypesfrequently attached to poor families that require short-termassistance from the government benefits schemes. Suggesting that theyare drug abusers or else worthy of doubt falsely singles the groupout of contempt. It opens the door for reducing the funds that availfundamental subsistence to children who are vulnerable and theirmothers(Carey, 281).A lot of these policies only seem to be aimed at interrupting orsuspending the participation of parents who will be found positive.There are better policy options which are available that can be usedby parents so as to have them go through rehabilitation. Helping theparents is far much better for their children who are innocent thanjust running them through drug tests and then kicking them out ofwelfares.

Welfareassistance is not supposed to be a one way contribution or anopen-ended prerogative. People ought to make available such supporton grounds of reciprocal obligation. Taxpayers are expected toprovide maintenance to those who are in need. Those receiving the aidare expected to engage in behavior that is constructive andresponsible as a condition for receiving the aid. A core element ofthe reciprocal obligation is requiring the recipients of the welfareto stop abusing drugs. It’s a burning issue since most studies haveindicated that a third of welfare recipients use drugs that areillegal. Taxpayers can assert that their monetary assistance goes tothe people who truly need it (Walsh,29).It is not supposed to be wasted on a self-destructive drug abuseindividuals since welfare spending ha hit one trillion dollars ayear. A policy for drug testing has made prospective applicants whouse drugs to refuse simply to join the system. Welfare programsshould be deliberated to encourage self-sufficiency like employmentamong adults and to discourage dependence on the government.

Somethingworth noting is that compulsory drug test for individuals who want toreceive benefits from the public is wrong. It discourages anddemonizes individuals who are in need of assistance, and itpropagates the hazardous, unsubstantiated conception that low-incomepeople and citizens are in some way less worthy of the statutoryprotections and elementary human self-worth to that we are alleligible (Budd,751).It is not good to back ineffectual, illegitimate, and expensivegovernment programs that impose on the lives of citizens and targetthe susceptible people during bad economic times.

Awelfare system should cater for the unemployed and underprivileged,unemployment insurance is meant to be a safety net, a passage toemployment. However, with the budget trouble is it necessary to paysomeone not to work when he has escaped the job pool by himself. Thatis what happens when someone who is unemployed is abusing drugs(Grant, 1450).Such kind of behavior is the ones that prompt the government toscreen all applicants who need unemployment insurance. Only thoseindividuals who pass are recommended to take the benefits. Most ofthe people would argue that such a proposal asks a lot from thepeople who have lost their jobs. Nonetheless, if a player has beeninjured and the team needs him back soon then he will also have tomake an effort of going for physical therapy, and this is same forthose people who are unemployed.

Iwould strongly support drug testing only for those individuals whohave a history of abusing drugs but not all applicants of thewelfare. This demand will be more defensible legally. Instead ofdoing away with drug users it is important to encourage them to joina health and assist them in the treatment process. It shows that theywill be forced to be clean in a short timeframe so as to be employed.It may perhaps be a better method to encourage work and reduce drugabuse.

Thedrug testing process also costs a lot of money. At this time ofeminent poverty, administrations at all stages are reducing thebudgets of relevant services that assist families with low income tostay healthy in stressful moments (Allard,134).However, it will be unfair for traditionalists who whine aboutexpenditure on the underprivileged to dedicate extra assets to newpolicies. These new expenses will not be engaged in servinglow-income individuals, but at policing them, this will meanharassment.

Inconclusion, it is good to accept that when screenings are required,it would prompt or give addicts a significant reason to search forassistance so that they can be healthy once again, maintain andafford for their families, eventually make constructive help to thesociety. Screenings would be a way to detect circumstances ofdependence and assist in the treatment process. However, thisselection ought to be voluntary, to avoid violating the rights of theindividuals. Nobody has to be forced through this process it shouldbe a policy that works well with people.


Carey,Corinne A. &quotCrafting a challenge to the practice of drug testingwelfare recipients: federal welfare reform and state response as themost recent chapter in the war on drugs.&quot&nbspBuff.L. Rev.&nbsp46(1998): 281.

Walsh,J. Michael, and Jeanne G. Trumble. &quotThe politics of drugtesting.&quot&nbspDrugtesting: Issues and options&nbsp(1991):22-49.

Budd,Jordan C. &quotPledge your body for your bread: Welfare, drugtesting, and the inferior fourth amendment.&quot&nbspWm.&amp Mary Bill Rts. J.&nbsp19(2010): 751.

Grant,Bridget F., and Deborah A. Dawson. &quotAlcohol and drug use, abuse,and dependence among welfare recipients.&quot&nbspAmericanJournal of Public Health86.10(1996): 1450.

Allard,Patricia.&nbspLifesentences: Denying welfare benefits to women convicted of drugoffenses.Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, (2002):134