According to the proposed law, all those people that test positive for drug addiction do not qualify for financial aid from the government. This paper seeks to explain why the drug testing for welfare program is important and the role it plays in society. In assessing this topic the main challenge was the task of bringing together the views of various scholars. Another challenge was the accessibility of relevant data. The paper will indicate how the pros of the idea outweigh the cons of the same. It is however worth mentioning that no difficulties were encountered in acquiring information on the general idea in the topic. This may be attributed to the fact that the topic is a key topic in the contemporary legal and political circles of America. Many newspapers and weekly journals are addressing the topic from the views of the various authors and scholars.
Background and introduction
Lewis (1990) said that “the efforts to have a law restricting the allocation of public aid to only those applicants that are not addicted to drugs began in the year 1996 during the administration of President Clinton”. However, the proposed law has received different reactions in the various states of America. Michigan was the first state to introduce legal efforts aimed at limiting the allocation of aid funds. Later that year, the efforts were declared unconstitutional and were consequently suspended. Having received a positive response in more than twenty eight states, the laws have come with more benefits than harm. Despite the criticisms the program has encountered in a number of states, most governors have appeared to be in good turn of the proposed law. The paper will as well look into the cost-benefit evaluation of the program. Statics and expert opinions relating to the legislation will as well be addressed. As part of the conclusion, the paper mentions some of the cons associated with the program.
Willard Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and Republican Party’s candidate for this year’s American presidential bid, is a prominent proponent of compulsory drug testing for welfare programs. Like Romney, many other proponents of the idea argue that it is disheartening for the taxpayers to bear the burden of availing drugs for the typical addict. As such, they have put efforts to ensure that a law is put in place requiring that all those seeking financial aid, be tested for drug addiction. It is vital to comprehend the connotation of welfare before coming to the conclusions on whether the program is beneficial or detrimental. Robyn (1999), says that “Welfare refers to aid given by the government to those members of the society that cannot sustain themselves and their families due to financial constraints”. As much as some states give aid in the form of commodities such as food and other basic commodities, the major form in which the aid is administered is through monetary assistance. There are particular criteria observed in deciding whether or not a citizen qualifies for the financial assistance. The level of income of the individual, number of dependants and the kind of family needs, are part of the criteria. Perhaps the drug testing is the most prominent, novel aspect of the criteria. Perhaps, drug testing for welfare is crucial in society today.
The significance of drug testing for welfare
Having understood the concept of welfare, it is important to focus on the cons and pros of the drug testing for welfare arrangement. In expressing the importance of drug testing for welfare, Wills (2000) said that “The the main benefit of drug testing for welfare is to protect the interest of the the taxpayer who is the most important stakeholder in the economy”. Fundamentally, taxes are the prime source of revenue to the government. It is this same revenue that funds most of the government projects and endeavors. One such an endeavor is to support the needy in social amount to social injustice if the government collected taxes from the citizens to give such monies to people that are dependent on drugs. Wills (2000) says “drug abuse is one of the most unjustified social evils”. By subjecting the applicants to the drug test, the government ensures that the money is only allocated to people that do not use drugs.
Robyn asserts that “drug testing for welfare arrangement protects children whose parents are drug addicts”. A parent who is addicted to the use of drugs is likely to spend the funds given to them by the state on drugs. The people that suffer is the children. Certainly, the children will not be in a situation to the way in such social services as education and health care. This is because the money allocated to them sinks into the purchase of drugs by their guardians or parents. Perhaps, in the occasion that the government finds the parent to be a drug addict that cannot take proper care of the children, it arranges for court orders that facilitate the forfeiture of custodial responsibilities of the parent. The parent is denied the opportunity of bringing up the children as the government takes custody of the kids. This way, the children are protected against the evils of poor parenting and given a chance of pursuing better careers.
Drug testing for welfare also ensures the citizens seeking welfare from the government are sufficiently responsible. Responsibility is associated with sobriety of the members of society. According to Pollack (2002) “Irresponsible behavior is characteristic of the drug abusing members of society”. For instance, it is not exceptional for a drug fanatic to neglect their children. They may lack the intellectual capability to understand that the children are fully dependent on them for basic needs such as shelter, food and clothing. By mitigating drug taking tendencies among the applicants for aid, the government ensures that the applicants are responsible and socially upright. Reduction of drug addiction among the members of society as well boosts productivity in the economy. Katel (2011) claims that “The drug addicts are usually unproductive members of the society because they cannot effectively participate in nation building as they lack the physical energy and intellectual capacity to undertake productive jobs”.
Drug testing for welfare is one of the strategy of saving money in the economy. It is common knowledge that the substances that most users get addicted to are very costly. Gupta (2011) says that “in United States of America most of the drug addicts were dependent on more than one drug. They use more than one hard drugs I their lifetime and in extreme cases, they use such drugs concurrently. This is to say that a drug addict could be addicted to both cocaine and heroin. Such drugs are very expensive especially in the cities. What makes them even more expensive is because they are not readily available. Those that manage to access the drugs, peddle them at exaggerated prices. Another reason why they peddlers sell them expensively is because the dealers know perfectly well that the addicts cannot do without consuming the drugs. The efforts by the government to mitigate drug use among the citizens save a lot of money. By quitting drugs, the addicts not only save money but also direct such money to better use.
Drug testing for welfare has contributed a great deal to the efforts by the government and other municipal authorities to reduce the crime rates in the downtown areas of the cities.Vitter (2011) asserted that “drugs are responsible for most crimes in the cities and towns”. Such crimes are most rampant in the ghetto areas of the cities. The fact crime is more rampant in the downtown area of the urban areas does not imply that people from the up market areas do not abuse drugs. It means that the people in the uptown areas are capable of affording the drugs and do not have to rob others in order to buy drugs .On the contrary, Vitter (2011) said that “people in the ghetto do not have reliable incomes”. This prompts them to steal and rob others so as to access adequate sums of money that can enable them buy drugs. Coincidentally, it is these same people from the downtown area that seek the welfare and other forms of aid from the state. It is therefore recommended that the government conducts drug testing for the poor people applying for welfare. This eliminates drug addiction in the downtown areas and reduces crime considerably.
There are many social evils associated with addiction to drugs. Such evils include prostitution and illegal smuggling of the substances. People, especially women engage prostitution due to the use of drugs. This point is twofold. Robyn (1999) states that “girls engage in prostitution because of poor judgment prompted by the use of drugs and activities in order to earn some meager dollars to enable them afford the drugs”. This causes further losses such as the spread of dangerous diseases and infections like the notorious HIV/AIDS. Irresponsible sexual behavior as well brings a social class of illegitimate children. Such children may lack parental guidance and grow to be a menace to society. Lewis (1990), pointed out that “drug testing reduces the abuse of drugs among the poor. Thus, by extension, reduces the mentioned social evils and crimes.
One of the counterarguments concerning this program is that its cost benefit analysis is not considerably favorable. Studies indicate that effectively, the program has not caused any substantial savings. The study indicates that since the introduction of the law, the number of applicants has not significantly changed. In the resreact, Gang (2012) “ a handful of the applicants tested positive. A countrywide research on social classes and drug addiction indicated that applicant for state welfare are more likely to abuse drugs than other groups relying on government aid such as farmers.
The second counterargument on this topic is that in addressing the issue of drugs, it leaves out the aspect of cigarette and tobacco smoking. This as well includes the weak stimulants vended in the local shops and the alcohol that is currently a big menace in the community (“Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs”, 2012). According to Robin Meredith, “there is no much difference between a smoker or a drunk and a drug addict. Both classes get addicted, anyway.” The law should therefore categorize the drunkards and smokers together with the drug addicts since according to Meredith, “both classes waste money on purchasing things that do not benefit their dependants”
Statistics indicate that the drug testing for welfare programs and legislation have received a positive response in many states. Legislators in Michigan passed a drug testing for welfare bill into law by an overwhelming majority in May this year. The bill had 72% of the legislators in favor and only 28% in opposition. According to the bill all those applicants that passed the drug test were eligible for the welfare if and only if they met the rest of the criteria. The law further states that those that got negative results of the drug test were not eligible for welfare for a period not more than six months from the day of such testing. Applicants that qualified for the welfare paid for the test through a reduction in the first amount issued as welfare. According to the governor, the law was intended to reduce drug dependency and incorporate a sense of accountability among the poor.
The proposed legislation was as well passed into law in 28 other states including Oklahoma and Tennessee in May of this year. According to Mary Fallin, the governor for Oklahoma, “allowing taxpayers’ money to fund the poor without screening them is equal to subsidizing the financing of drugs”. It is for this reason that experts have established that, governors from most states that have adopted the law have agreed to refuse to consider applicants that do not comply with the drug tests. Statics as well indicate that the Tennessee governor, Mr. Bill Haslam has made the bill a law. The law has the same provisions in all states. Utah adopted the bill and saw it signed into law in March this year. Later in July, Georgia adopted the same law requiring that drug tests be conducted on all people applying for consideration for the welfare funds and resources. The law started operating g in Georgia with effect from august this year.
In the state of Louisiana, the law was adopted in April but came with some unique property. According to the Louisiana version of the legislation, the applicants were to be subject to a random drug test that was done in such a manner that only one out of five applicants was screened. This was said to be a cost efficient scheme of achieving the intended results. Szalavitz (2012) says that “psychology works effectively as all other versions since nobody will be ready to take the chance” . In Ohio, the law was introduced, but was suspended in July this year following claims that it was unconstitutional. Even so, it has been reintroduced and still under the legislative process.
Those opposing the thought have asserted that it is not prudent to subject all those that require aid to the drug tests as this amounts to a kind of discrimination along social class. They argue that the system targets only the poor and is not at all reasonable to the average citizen. In addition, people have criticized the law as being non-comprehensive. Kondro (2011) “the law does not address the problem of alcoholism among poor parents”. Similarly, the drug tests ignore such conducts as chain smoking. Critics argue that there is utterly no disparity between the poor person that uses welfare money on drugs and one that spends on drinking, smoking or even consumption of junk foods. The opponents of the law have as well described the law as being discriminating in favor of the rich. Some expert opponents have described the enactment of the law as a move to criminalize poverty. Further, the critics have argued that the law will not sufficiently curb poverty since some of the drug addicts are rich and do not depend on welfare.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is critical to note that the drug testing for welfare is indeed a very important piece of legislation as it cuts down on the negative effects of drug abuse. The legislation has reduced such issues as neglecting of children, irresponsible behavior among parents and the all time menace of drug addiction. In general perspective, drug testing for welfare should be carried out.
References
Gang,D. (2012). "Tennesseean.com." TN studies drug testing in 6 states. Tennesseean.com, 10 2012. Web.
Gupta, V. (2011). Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? U.S. News Digital Weekly, 3(46), p14-14
Katel, P. (2011). States to Welfare Seekers: Drug Test Comes First. CQ Researcher, 21(38) p912-913
Kondro, W. (2011). Drug testing for welfare. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183 (11). P.721-721
Lewis, D. C. (1990). Drug testing: The downside of a good technology. DATA: The Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory & Application, 18(10) p8.
Pollack, H., Danziger, S., Jayakody, R & Seefeldt, K. (2002). Drug testing welfare recipients—false positives, false negatives, unanticipated opportunities. Women's Health Issues, 12 (1), p23
Robyn, M. (1999). Testing Welfare Applicants for Drugs. New York Times. p14
Szalavitz, M. (2012). "Time Heathland." Does Drug Testing the Poor Do Anything to. Time Heathland, 08 2011. Web.
"Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs (sidebar). (2012). " Issues & Contraversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Contraversies. Facts On File News Services, 9 Jan. 1998. Web. htt://www.2facts.com/article/ib300130
Vitter, D. (2011). Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? U.S. News Digital Weekly, 3(46), p14-14
Wills, G. (2000). David Duke's addictive politics. Time. 136(14), p43.
