On 30 January 2011, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill and sent it to the senate that would require drug testing for those receiving state Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) funds. Funding from food stamps, medicare, and public housing would not be affected by this bill (Keller – House). According to Columbia Tribune reporter Rudi Keller, the bill is very similar to the Arizona law which is the only other state that tests welfare recipients. Missouri and Arizona would use a questionare and interview which would determine which applicants to test. The two states are also similar in their caseload of 45,017 people on assistance in Arizona and 42,885 in Missouri. The state would not be obligated to provide treatment for those that fail. Also, children would be protected because the money would be given to them by a third party in the event that their head of household tests positive (Keller- Arizona). According to the Columbia Tribune, TANF is a five year maximum support benefit for people who are attempting to find a job or gain employment skills. The maximum TANF payment is $292 dollars a month with the head of household portion being $58 (Keller- House). The issue of drug testing those on welfare goes back to 1996 with the welfare reform act authorized, but did not require, states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance (Drug Testing).
This is a very divisive issue in Missouri and there are people that support the drug testing and those that oppose it. An article in Fox News discusses the supporter’s point of view. People want to make clear that “you don’t get something for nothing.” Also, jobs require drug testing, so why should benefits have the same...
... middle of paper ...
...ibune - Columbia, Missouri. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
Keller, Rudi. "House Passes Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri. 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
"States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
Waters, Henry J. "Demagogues on Parade - Commentary." The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri. 29 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
...ult, and some times it does not give a result at all. It is unfair because it only targets certain workers; mainly low wage employees. It is unjust because people are automatically accused of using drugs, and that is why the drug test is given. Drug testing should not be abolished, but it should be a more controlled issue since it is something everyone in the US must go through.
Hoberock, Barbara. “Senate panel OKs bill to test welfare recipients for drugs.” Tulsa World(ok) [Serial on the Internet]. Newspaper Source. 04 Feb. 2010. Web. 4 Feb. 2011.
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not Welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. The lines of reasoning from both sides of this argument have unambiguous points. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional, and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against the poor
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 fundamentally changed the cash welfare system in the United States. It cancelled Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) plan, replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It abolished the entitlement status of welfare, provided states with strong incentives to impose time limits, and tied funding levels to the states’ success in moving welfare recipients into work. It is well known that caseloads plummeted during the 1990s and that employment rates of single mothers--the primary recipients of welfare in the United States—rose almost as fast (Shipler).
Walters, Jonathan. Should Welfare Recipients Be Drug Tested? 13 March 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2014
Welfare Recipients-False Positives, False Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities. Women’s Health Issues, Vol. 12(1), pp. 23-31, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00139-6
“Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs?” Debate Club, U.S News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs
Each state is responsible for how the benefits are allocated. The application process for benefits is very similar among the states. However, 12 states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah) have laws regarding receiving benefits and drug testing. In 2011, 36 states proposed some form of drug testing for TANF benefits; in 2012, 28 states; in 2013, 29 states; and in 2014, 18 states. As of February 2015, at least 14 states have proposed legislation requiring some form of drug testing or screening for public assistance recipients (Finzel,
"Growing Support for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2014
Legal Challenges. When discussing the use of drug testing at the work place for pre-employment screening or on the job testing, we must consider the legal and ethical implications. Those who are in favor of drug testing claim that the testing itself acts as a deterrent in the use of illegal drugs and will also detect the use of illegal drugs which could impair employees resulting in injuries, accidents, lost productivity and ultimately liability concerns. Those in favor also refer to federal laws such as the Controlled Substances Act and take a zero tolerance approach to their employment policy. On the other hand those who argue against drug testing claim ethical violations of privacy and in some cases seek protection under state and federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, not always successfully. In the case of Raytheon v. Hernandez, the employee sought protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibits discrimination against individuals with a drug addiction, although it permits an employer to act against an employer because of current drug abuse” (Witlin 2004). There is also a trend in the United States for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal and/or medical use which creates conflicts for employers. Employers have the responsibility to interpret both federal and state laws when determining their stance and policies when it comes to drug testing at the work place.
... to introduce a bill to modify a state law that mandates random drug testing of welfare recipients who have recently been convicted of a drug felony.” The law burdens and already stressed county welfare system, costs more money and time than it will save. The role of the county welfare is to follow the law, not to redefine it.
Drug use now in days has grown more over these past years, with the abuse of drugs many people still have the privilege to apply freely to the welfare programs such as WIC, Food Stamps, and TANF. My interest to this topic is why it would be unconstitutional to be able to do a drug testing on welfare applicants.
As the common phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Change in the welfare system is a must now more than ever because the government is in such a bad economic state, and it must and should be ensured that the tax payers know exactly where their money is going once those welfare checks are administered. Drug testing is a top priority in welfare reform and it should be; tax payers’ money should not be used for the purchase of illegal substances. The state of Texas and the United States face problems with misuse of welfare funds and there must be a change in the system in order to combat this. The purpose of welfare is to aid those that are in financial need to purchase the essentials required for survival. Individuals receiving welfare should subject to a drug test at any moment to ensure that the assistance they are getting is not misused. There are a number of reasons why the recipients should take a drug test and these are the top three: ensuring that tax payers money is not misused, reduce drug use, and to be fair to the working citizens of America.
When employees get hired, they get a drug test due to the fact that the drug testing can prove if the person they are hiring is a good person for their business. For an example “Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees.” Drug testing also proves that people who passes it are clean and responsible people who the company can trust on doing their job well done and showing overall percentage of the US using drug testing (Chodorow). People who cheat on a drug test and gets a job will later ruin their job of getting into accidents during working and or start a fight with the boss or coworkers unknowingly just because they were high on drugs. That is why companies strive to do drug tests every time they hire an employee now due to the fact that they don’t want to be reliable for an employee who isn’t responsible and trustworthy of their time at their company. Which it will affect the company financially once employees gets hurt on their job. An employee who is not a drug abuser can really benefit a company by not causing trouble for themselves getting hurt in the company and also the business not being reliable for anything that is caused by the employee; who was not responsible. Another example is that reports confirm that 80% of those injured in “serious drug related accidents are innocent coworkers.” And after it began requiring accidents drug