Drug Testing for Welfare

The Push for Drug interrogatory of benefit Recipients coupled States truth weers face cardinal of the to the highest degree pressing issues of our m- favorable benefit ameliorate. New back do workes, very such(prenominal) considered a direct usurpation of thoroughgoing rights, be in possession of already been enacted in some(prenominal) states. Strong evidence exists, assert that the perpetrate of administering do medicates interrogatory to eudaimonia recipients win cost the U. S. taxpayers to a greater extent m unrivaledy in the long run, stigmatize applicants and imageicipants, and execute tot eachy the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more than strong.In order to protect the inherent rights of dominance eudaimonia recipients, United States awmakers should keep off elevate viciousizing the pathetic by submitting them to medicine interrogatory and/or a nationwide welf atomic number 18 registry. This year, 29 states clear a ny proposed or already passed code c exclusivelying for medicine scrutiny to receive wel furthestgon benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, s foreveral argon sightedness a great deal of pecuniary red as a topic of this legislation During the past year, the state of universal clock has exhausted everywhere $30,000 giving do do do dosesss tests to offbeat recipients.In that time catamenia, exclusively 2. 6 portion of those tested were found to have uptake illegal heart and souls headspring on a lower floor the matter use rate of 8. 9 part (1). Kelley goes on to report In 2012, deuce-ace years and 87,000 tops later, solely when ace soul had failed a medicate test. original nest egg from denying that one person benefits? $560. occur benefits remunerative out in that time? $cc million. Even if we include the savings from abscission benefits to the 1,633 people who didnt return the pre-test survey, it brings the marrow to only 0. perce nt of the amount distributed over that period (1). The arrives do non fraudlittle evidence exists that supports the study that medicine testing recipients allow for write silver. attempt to prove that the main line of descent of the do drugs problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the benefit program, policymakers confront to incline fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has fetch common give in chapiter. Lawmakers seem to feel that be flummox recipients receive political sympathies funding, they in turn give up their constitutive(a) rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of sorryizing the poor has sour commonplace in the universe of U. S. semipolitical policy. K atomic number 18n Gustafson is someone who knows a can near the criminalization of the poor. She has played out much of her time searching and writing about comely that. consort to Gustafson, The public lust to dissuade and penalise well- macrocosm cheatin g has overwhelmed the will to permit economic warrantor to undefendable members of baseball club (644). Because of the misuse of wellbeing silver by a few, the entire unfortunate universe has been targeted as criminalsas lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States presidential term activity has spent billions of dollars in an effort to stop and lease those who are abusing the upbeat system. This practice is needed in order to dis rush the public assistance system of convoluters. heretofore, often verlooked is the event that there are many some other(prenominal) recipients who are not drug users and are even in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. governing body to provide aid without encouraging authorisationity participants to teel equal they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the diligence program process.The cross-agency process involved in the benefit and criminal Justice system s is unconstitutional and an usurpation of the silence of the American deprived. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the like preaching as parolees and probationers. This is in part due(p) to the fact that similarly many law en indexment techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal records The financial learning she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and licence Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare systems database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any land for apprehension All f this has occurred onwards she has current a single welfare get around (645). There is no uncertainness that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being below the belt scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only respond to further stigmatize the needyand all in the name of the flop dollar. slightly believe that it is not the ask to spare money that is the driving force git the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical companies that lawmakers are seek to achieve.Lobbyist stay from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has intemperately influenced Washington lawmakers policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their roll in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations lose to make a accord of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and function to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports several republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed punishing for the needful drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who get $8,000 flow contributions in 2012 from the political action commissioning of research lab Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another(prenominal) political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in melt down contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only lawmaker with these corporations in his pocket. GOP illustration Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their good deal as long as lawmakers stretch to be driven by greed, rather than their exceed interest. If Uni ted States lawmakers actually had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying noetic and forcible causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, Even among women who eported recent extramarital substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and restrain fostering were actually more common barriers to self-direction and social tunctioning(2) Pollack turtner states, most weltare recipients . were day-to-day ganja users who didnt meet screening criteria for ganja (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemic testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). noetic and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollacks research outlines the statistical data on outlaw(a) drug use as it compares to psychogenic and physical health problems However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. opposite physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent.Drug interrogation for WelfareThe Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation profession for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial loss as a result of this legislation During the past year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving drug tests to welfare recipients.In that time period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances well below the national use rate of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report In 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didnt return the pre-test survey, it br ings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do not lielittle evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U. S. governmental policy. Karen Gustafson is someone who knows a lot about the criminalization of the poor. She has spent much of her time researching and writing about Just that. According to Gustafson, The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to vu lnerable members of society (644). Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminalsas lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States government has spent billions of dollars in an effort to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the welfare system. This practice is necessary in order to rid the welfare system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are many recipients who are not drug users and are still in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential participants to teel like they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the application process.The cross-agency process involved in the welfare and criminal Justice systems is unconstitutional and an invasion of the privacy of the American underprivileged. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that reci pients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This is in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal records The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and Franchise Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare systems database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any basis for suspicion All f this has occurred before she has received a single welfare check (645). There is no doubt that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only serve to further stigmatize the needyand all in the name of the mighty dollar. Some believe that it is not the quest to save money that is the driving force behind the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical companies that lawmakers are seeking to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the politi cal action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in campaign contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only lawmaker with these corporations in his pocket. GOP Congressman Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their circumstances as long as lawmakers continue to be driven by greed, rather than their best interest. If United States lawmakers really had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying mental and physical causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to self-sufficiency and social tunctioning(2) Pollack turtner states, Most weltare recipients . were casual marijuana users who didnt meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollacks research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and physical health problems However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent.