More handpicked essays just for you.
Welfare mandatory drug testing programs
Psychological approach to drug addiction
Psychological approach to drug addiction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The government has never been able to agree on whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested. Anyone receiving government benefits should not have to take a drug test. Some benefits to drug testing are, welfare requires people to only purchase necessities, it may also get them to receive help or stop them from doing drugs, at the same time it will separate the people who use welfare for drugs to the people that don't; however there are many drawbacks from drug tests they are expensive, invasive, pointless and unconstitutional. There are many hard working people out there that are more than furious to find out that there hard earned money is going to waste. They agree that their taxes should not go to support, nor should they be forced to pay for someone elses illegal and immoral behaviors. They believe that the best way to stop people from taking advantage of the money provided to them by the government , would be to give every recipient wanting welfare a drug test. So that it is clear to citizens that this is a very serious matter, also to insure that citizens are only buying things that they need.(debate.org, 1) If threatened by a drug test citizens will either stop doing drugs or may want to receive help to get off of them. At this point we are enforcing drugs to citizens we arent taking a stand, we are saying that it is okay for them to use other peoples HARD EARNED money for things that they don't need, such as drugs, beer, cigarettes, etc. We are doing nothing to help them, we need to force them to fund for themselves instead of feeding off of others money. The government is making it easy for them to just sit back and relax while others are working their butts off. There are citizens out there that could act... ... middle of paper ... ...ens drug tests requires people to only purchase necessities. If threatened by a drug test they will either get off drugs or continue to receive help. Drug testing will help separate people who use welfare for drugs from the people that don't. I personally believe that welfare recipients should not have to be tested, because it takes to much time and money. Now its up to our government to decide, if they are going to follow through with drug testing. Works Cited Judge nixes Florida’s welfare drug testing. 31 December. 2013. Web. 24 January. 2014. Pollack, Harold. States want drug tests for welfare recipients. That’s a terrible idea. Washington Post. 5 June. 2013. Page 2. Magazine. Should people on welfare be drug tested? 25 April. 2013. Web. 8 January. 2014. Why can't we drug test welfare recipients? I got tested for my job. 2 Sep. 2013. Web. 8 January. 2014.
“Was the hope [Macbeth’s ambition] drunk. . . And wakes it now, to look so green and pale . . . Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard/ To be the same in thine own act and valor/ As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that ” (1, 7, 35-41). Lady Macbeth would never be able to commit the crime herself because of the role she believes she has as a woman, but she knew her husband could. To make sure he follows through she makes fun of him and uses peer pressure by saying he is just afraid to actually kill Duncan. The blood that will be shed is a symbol of loyalty Macbeth to Lady Macbeth. Even when he killed Macdonwald, it was to prove his loyalty to king Duncan, but Lady Macbeth still does not trust her husband enough. Macbeth starts to act delusional when he sees the ghost of Banquo, but Lady Macbeth tries to reassure the guests to simply ignore him. “Sit worthy friends. My lord is often thus/ And hath been from his youth. Pray you, keep seat . . . If you much note him/ You shall offend him and extend his passion” (3, 4, 53- 57). Lady Macbeth feels more embarrassed by her husband instead of trying to be there for
...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.
"States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 March 2009. Web. 31 January 2011
, implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, individuals that support the law, express that the plan being put in effect is to ensure that tax payer’s money isn’t being thrown away on people who only plan to abuse this assistance. Out of the fifty states, only nine have proceeded with the drug testing of candidates. The drug testing has proven to be quite expensive. Consequently, some of the states only test subjects with whom they find suspicion, or that have admitted to drug use in the past. Though the proposal of drug testing Welfare applicants appears to be a good idea to weed out spongers from getting assistance, it seems that more money may be wasted on the testing itself, which would be imprudent in proving this law worthwhile.
Working money provides more for families than borrowed money. Money cannot continue to be distributed unfairly from productive Americans to Americans who refuse to be constructive. Americans need to concentrate on the long-term effects of welfare. People are depending on the programs available to survive. What are we teaching our future generations, to rely on someone else? According to _ over one hundred and forty million dollars were spent on SNAP/Food Stamps in February 2016 alone; however, this was only in Tennessee. Welfare recipients are taking advantage of many aid and programs that should be profiting other families or children in crisis. Growing up there were five of us in our household. I have no problem with tax dollars being used to help families in a crisis. There were three children, my dad, and step mom; however, my dad was the only source of income for our family; therefore, my dad had to pay not only his expenses, but for four other family members too. Welfare recipients must think about this on only a small spectrum of how this would affect a family
Walters, Jonathan. Should Welfare Recipients Be Drug Tested? 13 March 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2014
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. Both sides of the argument have merit. 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 those from low socioeconomic demographics, implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, those who support the law note that its intended purpose is to ensure that taxpayer money is not being squandered on people who only plan to abuse this assistance. Only nine states so far have instituted drug testing of candidates for welfare assistance. This drug testing has proven to be prohibitively expensive in many cases. Consequently, some states only test subjects with whom they find suspicion, or who have admitted to past drug use. Though proposed drug testing of welfare applicants initially appears to be a good idea to eliminate potential abusers of the system from receiving assistance, it appears that even more money may be wasted on the testing process, which negates the savings that are the primary objective of the law.
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
...earned dollars are not contributing to help the rightful recipients, but instead it is going straight to the pocket of individuals that are abusing the system and could care less about violating the law. Committing any welfare fraud is illegal and whoever chooses to break the law will be punished. “The Department of Human Services (DHS) may hold an administrative hearing, bring criminal charges or ask you to voluntarily sign a disqualification agreement if you are suspected of fraud. You will have to pay DHS back and will also be disqualified from receiving benefits for 1 to 10 years” (“Welfare” 2). Bringing criminal charges on recipients that are misusing and abusing the system is fair. It is a serious matter that needs to be taken seriously. It is stealing from the tax payers and taking away assistance from individuals that doubtlessly need the assistance.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
A 2012 poll showed that 58% of Americans are in favor of decriminalization of drugs like Marijuana, as opposed to 12% back in 1969. [1] Many Americans feel that the war on drugs has failed, and that our police officers and other federal institutions could be making better use of their time, effort, and fiscal resources. The cost of this war on drugs has become so great. Not only does the war cost billions to enforce, but countless lives are lost as the cartels become more violent in their pursuit of power.
Ultimately the question that we should ask,have we as a nation approach the war on drugs fairly ? Is the war on drugs about the drug or is it about our people? I can honestly say with my head held high its not about the drug but about the people. .We as a nation don't gain anything if we strip our people from their rights and abandoned them. As Lisa D. Moore, DrPH and Amy Elkavich, BA noted, “Everyone should be able to access quality health care and education inside and out of prison. We should support ex-felons after their prison terms in their attempts to find meaningful employment, housing, and education.” We all live under one nation and should strive to be the best nations and allowing people to seize our rights as citizen is irrational. We need to step up and ask for change!
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.
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.
Lady Macbeth is able to achieve such power over her husband by continually insulting his manliness and boasting her...