The fuel of the debate is that the U.S. government wants to implement scheduled drug testing of individuals currently receiving welfare. Reasons for testing the recipients for drug use include saving money for the government and lowering the rate of drug abuse in America. The new bill enacted, which allows the government to carry out these drug tests, does neither of the aforementioned things. On the other hand, the bill does the exact opposite; it will end up costing the government and taxpayers more money trying to keep welfare recipients from receiving any aid from the government than it would by just allowing them to collect the money.
Firstly, taking into account the false positives is paramount. Drug tests are not 100% accurate and can lead to a positive reading, even if the individual being tested did not consume any illegal drugs. For example, an individual that tested positive for THC (marijuana) could have been taking Advil for a headache. Advil is a legal, over the counter medication that is interpreted as THC in a urinalysis drug screening (AskDocWeb). There are hundreds of legal, ordinary, substances that lead to positive readings on drug screenings. The probability of a false positive outcome on a urinalysis drug screening is possible to range anywhere from a 2% to 50% possibility (Gleason and Barnum, 1989). The result of a false positive could lead to a demand for a retest on behalf of the individual being tested.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Drug testing is a costly process and will cost taxpayers more money than what they get taken away now for welfare recipients. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the average drug test cost is in the mid to high $40 range per person tested. This does not include an administration that needs to be hired to process the results and send them to the appropriate people behind the operation, for ensuring confidentiality throughout the process (ACLU, 2008). With the information on the cost of drug testing it is easily explainable as to why it is fiscally not a well thought out idea on the government's behalf. $45 a test, multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients in a given state multiplied by twelve (assuming that a test will be administered no more than once a month), is a significantly high cost to taxpayers. In reality, on the budgets that welfare recipients receive, it is not economically possible for the individuals to even be able to afford a drug habit.
Randomly drug testing welfare recipients is arguably unconstitutional ("NPR Choice page", 2010). It is unconstitutional in the sense that it is violating these individuals’ 4 th amendment rights. For instance, in the state of Michigan, the random drug testing law was ruled unconstitutional and thrown out of court by a federal appellate court for the simple reason that it was an unlawful search and seizure ("Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance", 2017). If one is eligible to receive benefits, such as welfare, then you are entitled to do what you please with this funding. If implemented, the government will giving the money to these people, but at the same time abusing their power by controlling how they utilize the funding. By demanding a urine sample, the government is taking something that does not belong to them without a warrant, much like having a police officer enter an individual's place of residence unauthorized and without a warrant or probable cause to do so.
Clearly, the drug testing law is a bias toward only illegal drugs. The nation's most widely abused drugs are perfectly legal, and those drugs are commonly known as alcohol and tobacco. Why only test for illegal drugs if the issue at hand deals with what welfare recipients are spending their money and whether or not it is beneficial to their family and helping them advance in life. The reason these are fine to spend the money on is that the state is getting it back in the end due to heavy state taxes on these items. The whole concept in itself is immoral. Alcohol and tobacco do nothing to help welfare recipients, but yet are okay to purchase according to the government that is trying to control how these individuals’ money is being spent. It goes to show that the drug testing law is nothing but an immoral scheme to try and save money for the government.
Many medical institutes and professionals strongly disagree with the implementation of random mandatory drug testing laws for numerous credible reasons, among them a violation of the welfare recipients’ privacy (Pérez-Muñoz, 2017). They argue that the government is trying to brush a serious issue, such as drug abuse, under the drug by forcing people to succumb to a drug test only to be cut off from all aid if tested positive (Health Professionals Challenge Drug Testing Trial 2017). Many of these medical associations feel as though the government should apply this type of enthusiasm in the direction of guiding one to treatment if found out to be a drug abuser, and helping him or her acquire rehabilitation to remedy the prevalent problem. These tests are inconspicuously intended to capture marijuana users ("Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance", 2017). It is not very effective in catching hard drug users solely because hard drugs are undetectable from urine samples within the short range of a few hours to a day or two. In contrast, marijuana is detectable in urine for as long as a 30-day time frame.
In sum, just because someone is battling addiction does not mean you deprive them of aid in a time of need. It is the prime time to step in and help that individual and guide them in the right step to turning their life around and eventually getting a job and removing them from their welfare grant, the moral and fairway. Forcing someone to do something is not in the best interest of the individual, nor is it in the best interest of our society as a whole. Removing the aid of an oppressed being and forcing them on the streets with no income is not a way to get someone to neither be productive in society nor help toward making America a safer country.
References
Gleason, John M., and Darold T. Barnum. "Employee Drug Testing." University of New Hampshire School of Law. New Hampshire School of Law. Web. 24 Sept. 2011. http://law.unh.edu/risk/vol2/winter/gleason.htm
Greenblatt, Alan. "Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing? : NPR." National Public Radio. NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, U.S., Music & Arts : NPR, 31 Mar. 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2020 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125387528 NPR explained how the law is unconstitutional and degrading to oppressed poor individuals.
Pérez-Muñoz, C. (2017). What is wrong with Testing Welfare Recipients for Drug Use? Political Studies, 65(4), 912–929.
Health Professionals Challenge Drug Testing Trial. (2017). Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, 25(4), 12. Retrieved 3 February 2020 from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=7844494e-7c76-4281-bf5d-58e2ed324695%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=125308140&db=ccm
"Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility." American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, 8 Apr. 2008. Retrieved 3 February 2020 from http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility
Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance. (24 March 2017). Retrieved 1 February 2020, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx
