CHANGE IN THE COMMUNITY
Nowadays democratic society has developed various institutions and programs in order to provide equal conditions for personal and societal growth of everyone. In particular, people, who are less well-off, have chances to get needed help from state. Apart from common material goods, so-called welfare recipients are able to get particular medical aid, job offers, whereas children are given education opportunities (grants, loans etc.). No wonder, similar campaigns are rather costly, hence, a considerable part of taxpayers’ money is used for such goals.
There occurs a reasonable question: is it fair if money of those, who work fair come into pockets of black hearted ones? Furthermore, the issue of drug abuse is still notoriously topical. Consequently, rather brilliant initiative comes into force in many states – namely, an obligatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
As this topic refers to wide masses of people and cannot leave anybody indifferent, no wonder, there is an open discussion considering whether it is beneficiary project or not. By the way, there is an interesting approach to any policy analyzing: it is to be defined how effective, efficient and ethically sound the policy is (Kirst-Ashman, 2016, p. 234). Let us apply this approach in order to estimate drug testing of aforementioned social layer in an unbiased and comprehensive way.
The evaluation of its effectiveness means the defining of how much the original aim is accomplished. To begin with, the aim of this policy is rather practical and at the same time noble: it is aimed at the shortening of vain expanses for the sake of drug addicted as well as at motivating people for self-improving. In other words, the goal is to help welfare recipients become independent of drugs and welfare, break down the barriers to employment, and reduce the risk to children of substance abusers (Delva, 2011, n. p.). To my mind, such policy is oriented on future, so the best results could not be seen right away. Nevertheless, some great changes are evident: many of those, who still need to maintain a status of welfare recipient, are deprived of any other choice but to give up fatal and destructive addiction and become responsible citizens.
Concerning the efficiency of policy always leads to wide debates. Despite claims of opponents, who argue that the procedure of drug testing itself, being rather expensive, does not fulfill expectations, in fact such initiative saves money for local government funded programs. In addition, there is a possibility to economize those money, which formerly were given in unknown hands. No doubt, the system of drug testing does not belong to cheap ones, but it manages to save money for a longer perspective.
The ethical issue also remains rather disputed one. On the one hand, opponents even actively cite federal appellate court decisions finding that mandatory testing allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits illegal search and seizure (Bowman, Kearney, 2016, p. 469). On the other hand, such testing for welfare recipients actually becomes a tool for general equality, as in fact, many employers demand negative result on obligatory testing as the prerequisite of getting a job. Therefore, testing of welfare recipients does not mean that government is aimed at stigmatizing of them as lower class, but it sets equal conditions for any law-abiding citizen.
Furthermore, its noble aim contributes to ethical issue as well. Such mandatory procedure serves like strong incentive for committing to treatment as well as motivating to find work and create own financial welfare, without waiting for state support. Obviously, not every drug addict will be immediately healed or personally transformed, but if there is a great chance to influence them in such comparatively soft way, there is no point to waste it.
In addition, many people discuss the children problem in the context of welfare recipients testing. For instance, some people claim that children in families of addicts will likely to be deprived of the last hope – state support, which could not be leaved unnoticed by government. In fact, similar statements are far from the truth, as children in such families will be given state support irrespectively of parents’ lifestyle. What’s more, in particular cases special state’s guardianship is possible, so it will also change kid’s environment from socially hazardous to favorable one.
As a result, despite numerous arguments of opponents of this very idea, all their claims may be objected with also numerous, but more sustainable and valid arguments of its advocates. Apart from aforementioned views, it is to be also highlighted that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients also works on long-termed perspective in lives of former drug addicts as well. For instance, a person who gets money from state budget and tax-payers’ pockets and spends them on drugs, just would not manage to get out of this vicious circle by own means. In contrast, considered policy is aimed at the reloading of one’s personality, who is taught to be responsible for own actions and behavior, looking into future with high hopes, but without frightening, ill hearted doubt.
Taking all these factors into account, my conclusion is that an obligatory drug testing of welfare recipients is evidently a beneficiary initiative. This policy works for saving money, ensuring that costs are made exclusively for the sake of those, who really need it, for preventing people from becoming drug addicts and for deterring former addicts from destructive continuing of such unsocial lifestyle. The less obvious benefits can be seen in saving vulnerable children and transforming addicts into independent, self-conscious employees.
References
1. Bowman, A. O'M., Kearney, R. C. (2016). State and Local Government. Boston: Cengage Learning.
2. Delva, J. (2011). Substance Abuse Issues Among Families in Diverse Populations. New York: Routledge.
3. Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2016). Empowerment Series: Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives. Boston: Cengage Learning.
