More handpicked essays just for you.
Welfare mandatory drug testing programs
Should people on welfare be drug tested
Should people on welfare be drug tested
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Welfare mandatory drug testing programs
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. I believe that if the government has a lot of power; why is that they cannot approve for drug test and make it constitutional. Although I completely understand that it would break the fourth amendment that protects against unreasonable searches. Which many citizens are much protected in this way? However, I believe that us as taxpayers should be able to make sure that these applicants towards welfare should be drug screen. At the time we apply for a job we are agreeing to a background check and drug screen. Which I think it should be the same for those who apply. Therefore the tax money taken out of our checks, to help the governor to provide these …show more content…
For example, in Florida in 2010, when Governor Rick Scott vowed that one way he would save taxpayers money would be to require welfare applicants to undergo a test (Sherman). Unfortunately, as Rick Scott kept fighting back with several courts, he kept getting shutdown in his courts, due to being a waste of money, unconstitutional, and taking away the protection of the fourth amendment. Even though Lawmakers who push these bills claim that they will cut down on costs by rooting out drug abusers while also helping to refer those users to treatment. In reality, they come with few, if any, benefits (Covert and Israel).Congress have done many votes, in fact they are always out shorten. Many have worked for this law to be passed; some worked against drug testing welfare applicants. Either way the once against this law still think testing every applicant would be a waste of
Monitoring and sanctions are the more costly of oversight functions and the least likely to be used; they also do not ensure that the noncompliance problem will end. (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast 1987) This follows with McCubbins and Schwartz who theorize that members of congress do not neglect monitoring and their oversight functions but that they prefer the fire-alarm policing in which citizens tend to alert them to problems because it allows them to also do their legislative work (1984). Monitoring along with its economic costs also has political costs if an action that an agency takes in its noncompliance creates a new political interest then by sanctioning them members can incur political costs that would not have otherwise been present with proper anticipation and prevention. (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast 1987) Anticipatory prevention of noncompliance is a form of latent control that congress can exercise that is more effective; Calvert, McCubbins and Weingast develop a theory that includes this finding, “Latent oversight is, by definition, never observed; but its role in implementing political control over the agency is in principle just as important as that of active control (Calvert, McCubbins and Weingast, 1989).” This often occurs when the agent fears sanction in the case of this theory developed the veto, this point would
Mann and Norman J. Ornstein argue that the Legislative branch is the most broken branch of government. Congress was designed by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States to be an independent and powerful party. The Framers wanted the Legislative branch to represent the vast diversity of people of the United States, to deliberate on important issues and policies, and to check and balance the other branches. However, Congress’s role in the American Constitutional System differs from the part it was meant to play. The authors argue that Congress has failed to fill its responsibilities to the people of the United States because of the division of the Democratic and Republican parties, which leaves little room for compromise and negotiation. Members of Congress focus on their own needs and interests, and will travel to far lengths to prove that their political party is the most powerful. Congress has turned a blind eye to the needs of the American people. Congress cannot succeed in getting the United States back on track unless they start to follow the rules dictated by the Framers of the Constitution. A vast series of decisions made by Congress, driven by Congress’s disregard for institutional procedures, its tendency to focus on personal ethics, and the overpowering culture of corruption, led to Congress failing to implement important changes in the United States
Hamilton provides an inside look at how congress really works and clears up popular misconception that make members of congress look like wasteful bickering crooks that support gridlock and are only concerned with the needs of interest groups and lobbyists. Hamilton argues that Congress has changed for the better throughout the years and that they are held at higher standards than they were before. Hamilton states that Congress is not only working at keeping the public happy but that have recently become faced with a lot more issues than before, they are not only more issues but more complicated and technical that are very high risk policies that take a long time to produce a decision (Hamilton, 1988, 65). Hamilton states that Congress is a system in which the viewpoints of everyone are taken into account and make sure there is a consensus when it comes to defining decisions. Even though many of us acknowledge that lobbyist and special interest groups play an essential role in the law making party, Congress is making an effort to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard. Congress is making sure that the balance of power is distributed properly. In recent years, there has been a decline in mega-lobbies and interest groups so that not only the wealthy powerful get their voice heard, but the everyday american people get an opinion in things that affect them as well. In Gary Lee’s article, The NRA Has Lost some Firepower, we can see that interest groups are beginning to have less of an influence on larger political decisions (Hamilton, 1988, 65). For example, the National Rifle Association’s defeat in the battle over the “Brady bill” and their war towards trying to revamp Medicaid was a great loss for lobbyists and
...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.
Interest groups, lobbyists, large corporations, and PACs try to influence the congressional committees' bills so they can have a say in the legislative process. When an interest group hears about a bill that is being debated on in a committee, they try to influence a members vote and they try to get a part of the bill changed. For example, a lobbyist came to me on a bill I proposed on making health care plans have no minimum requirement on benefits the company gives to its patients. He told me about how he did not get the right treatments and tests done on diseases he has and now is suffering badly from them. It was because the health plan did not have to give him anything extra. He changed my mind on the bill, and I changed the bill to setting a minimum standard on benefits given to patients.
...ooking to be eligible for addition money. Some political leaders are also supporting voucher programs to please constituents who are, by no fault of their own, looking for immediate solutions to the problems they face. However, our society must be careful not to "bandage" the problem, but instead to fix it.
"States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 March 2009. Web. 31 January 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
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.
In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed. Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies.
Some may say that drug testing students is unconstitutional because it is an “invasion of privacy”. This, however, is not true. . . “In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled that drug testing for high school athletes was constitutional, and some districts expanded their policies to include middle schools.” I believe allowing schools to drug test athletes was a very positive thing. For many reason, but mainly because athletes who are on drugs have a higher risk of being injured. For example a kid who is on drugs and plays a sporting event has a greater risk of their heart stopping on the field or court. “Drug tests analyze bodily samples such as urine, blood, or hair to detect the presence of legal and illegal drugs.” The most common one is urine testing. I believe urine testing is the best way for high school students, because it does not take as long as some other tests and it is not as costly as other tests. This is especially important because obviously a school does not want to spend money on anything they do not have to. Our school does randomly drug test students every once in a while but only a few of the athletes are chosen to take the test so that really is not helping ...
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
“States Consider Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients.” Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 21.8 (2009): 4-6 Academic Search Premir. Web. 28 Sept. 2015
When states try to find ways to restrain from non-essential areas, unfunded federal mandates are at the top of the list. These mandates often force state and local governments to spend much more than necessary on everything from medical care to welfare to road building. A complex web of federal programs bind together the tree treasuries of the local, state, and federal government. As much as 25 percent of state budgets now comes from the federal government, and up to 60 percent of some state budgets is spent on joint federal-state programs.
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.