Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients? Essay

Temporary Assi military capability for poor Families (TANF) is a federally gunstocked block turn over which provides holdy families avail in purpose and obtaining work opportunities. The pecuniary resource atomic number 18 disposed(p) to dry lands to distribute. States ar allowed some flexibility in how they chose to distribute these funds. thither has been a new-made movement among adduces to implement do medicines interrogatory for appli tushts and recipients to pose this assistance. M any people befool this as a violation of their quaternate amendment rights. The ideology behind medicine interrogation is to weed out mis mathematical function of funds by recipients, olibanum alleviating budgetary concerns in backbreaking economic times. be at that place some other means of easing budgetary issues without potentially violating the fourth amendment rights of the poor? A common stereotype of people receiving popular assistance is they argon people who ar e medicate addicts, alcoholics, lazy, and dont exigency to work. Stereotypes are prevalentizations made about a certain group of people, good or bad. Stereotypes crap a negative travel when they keep us from seeing a person for who they in reality are negating the respective(prenominal) (Iowa State University Study overseas Center). fit in to an opinion poll on Debate.org, lxx percent of people responded yes when answering the question, Should somebody receiving offbeat be drug tried? Respondents recountd reasons such as You skunkt trust some angiotensin-converting enzyme to use free money on things they posit, Help should be given to those who really need it not to people who are too lazy to work, and I dont believe it is mean(a) hard-working people have to pay taxes, and the money goes to lazy people who spend our hard earned money on drugs (Debate.com). These evincements are indicative of stereotyping stereotypes being pervasive inside our society (Iowa State Un iversity Study overseas Center). However, not all applicants or recipients needing mankind assistance fall within the stereotype. Luis Lebron is a 35- year-old Navy veteran, father of a 4-year-old, the fix dogiver for his disabled mother and a student at the University of Central Florida. He just needs some booster after having served his country and while act to covering school and say care of his son and disabled mother (Bloom). The American cultivated Liberties Union (ACLU) in Florida has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Lebron due to his refusal to set back to a drug run and put out his quaternary Amendment rights. Lebron feels that, Its insulting and contaminating that people think Im using drugs just because I need a undersized help to take care of my family while I finish up my education. The 4th Amendment of theUnited States constitution uttersThe right of the people to be near in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seiz ures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, back up by oath or affirmation, and peculiarly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cornell University Law domesticate Legal breeding found). The concept of the 4th amendment is to protect both(prenominal) basic emancipations the right to privacy and freedom from random search and seizure. (Cornell University Law check Legal Information plant). Twenty-eight states have proposed drug test public assistance, correspond the National Conference of State Legislature. do has passed economy requiring applicants to complete a scripted questionnaire screening for drug use. Georgia passed legislation requiring drug tests for all applicants. The Louisiana star sign endorsed random drug-testing of 20 percent of the states benefit recipients. Ohio is considering a pilot light program to test wellbeing recipients. Floridas drug testing law demand applicants to pay for their tests and then would be reimbursed if the results turn up negative (Prah). federal or state laws that require suspicionless drug testing for eligibility to receive public assistance may be subject to constitutional challenge. Constitutional challenges are aimed towards privacy and unreasonable search. For searches to be reasonable, they in general must be ground on suspicion, unless a special need can be shown that may allow for an exception. in the public eye(predicate) assistance programs do not inevitably create these special needs grounded in public safety that the Supreme judicature has recognized in the past (Carpenter). in that location has only been litigation initiated in two states where the laws require suspicionless drug testing Florida where the U.S. dominion Court issued an injunction to stop testing and Michigan where several individuals were granted a temporary injunction. A number of other applicants in Florida chose not to submit to drug testing. Because applicants are not required to let off why they chose not to submit to the tests, there is no statistical data as to the reasons why. Proponents for testing believe it is because applicants knew they would fail the test. However, opponents state that the reasoning could be because applicants may not have been able to afford the tests or because testing sites were not easily neighborly (The Assoicated Press). It has been suggested that drug outcry is a major(ip) cause of welfare. However, there is only evidence, based on secondhand information, to support this. If drug use among welfare participants were reduced to the levels of non-participants, welfare participation would decline by slightly one percent (Kaestner). A musical theme from the National bestow on alcoholic beverage Abuse and intoxicantism states, Proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. popu lation and adults who do not receive welfare (National Institute of Health). The researchers launch the nightclub of drug abuse and/or dependency among welfare recipients to fall amid 1.3 and 3.6 percent, as opposed to a rate of 1.5 percent within the general population. info from the National Household Survey of medicine Abuse roughly coincides with these findings, with the rate of drug dependency among welfare recipients being nearly 4 percent. Further, the data suggests that no much than one in five welfare recipients apply illegal drugs in any given year half of those having used only marijuana (Budd). The evidence from these iii studies shows that although drug use is tied to stateless and welfare participation, proportionally to the general population there is not a evidential difference. Finally, in the study by Kaestner, he suggests that for purposes of reducing welfare, public programs should focus their efforts on something besides drug use (Kaestner). There is the belief that testing welfare applicants and recipients volition reduce the payment of benefits to people who are mishandling the funds. In a 2011 article from the Tampa Tribune, Whittenburg reports, with the second-rate represent of test being roughly $30, the state would owe $28,000 $43,000 in reimbursements for applicants who passed tests monthly. The state would save approximately $32,000 to $48,000 for spurned applicants, anticipate 20 to 30 people failed the test monthly. eudaimonia recipients receive an average of $134 per month, so the state would save approximately $2600 to $3300 which the jilted applicants wouldnt receive.Over a one year period, which is the disqualification period for one failed test, the state could save $32,000 to $48,000 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month. The pass savings would be $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one months exist of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted pull up stakes cost $178 million this fiscal year (Whittenburg). In a 2012 article from the unseasoned York Times, Alvarez reports that during the period that the Florida state law was in effect that required drug tests for welfare applicants, there was no direct savings. It free-base only a few drug users and didnt affect the number of uses. fit in to the law, applicants who passed the drug test were reimbursed, an average of $30 for the cost of testing. Negative testing thus cost the state a little more than $118,000. This alone is more than the cost of benefits to those who failed the test. Ultimately, this turns out to be a cost to the state of an extra $45,780 (Alvarez). In order to avert any further speak to proceedings initiated by plaintiffs who believe their 4th amendment rights have been violated and avert dear(p) testing programs, it would be prudent for the Federal giving med ication to exact language that explicitly prohibits the use of suspicionless drug testing in order to receive money from federally funded programs. Rather, government officials should refocus their efforts in the react against drugs to the recovery from substance abuse of the general public rather than targeting a proper(postnominal) group of people, namely welfare recipients. Citizens should bespeak their states representatives to vote against proposed laws that support drug testing. Further, those representatives should judge to supplement existing or fund new treatment programs with the dollars saved by eliminating drug testing programs for welfare applicants and recipients. other step to solidify a stance against suspicionless testing would be an amendment to the Personal province and Work Opportunity Reconciliation exertion (PRWORA) to include language that explicitly prohibits suspicionless testing. assumption that the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that substance abuse is no more prevalent in welfare applicants and recipients than the general population (National Institute of Health) then there is no stem for testing as a flesh for receiving benefits. Alleviation of budgetary concerns is not guaranteed by the reduction of caseloads due to positive tests (Office of the aid Secretary for Planning and Evaluation). Where challenged, courts have mulish that suspicionless testing is a violation of the 4th Amendment (Schaberg). North Carolinas Governor, after vetoing a bill to implement drug testing, stated, medicine testing applicants could lead to inconsistent application Thats a recipe for government overreach and unnecessary government intrusion. This is not a smart way to contend drug abuse. Similar efforts in other states have proved to be dear(predicate) for taxpayers and did little to actually help chip drug addiction. (Smith)BibliographyAlvarez, Lizette. No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests. The ri sing York Times 18 April 2012 A14. Bloom, Rachel. Poor volume Have Rights Too. 12 October 2011. American Civil Liberties Union. 3 wonderful 2013 . Budd, Jordan C. Pledge Your personify for Your Bread Welfare, Drug examination, and the Inferior quaternate Amendment. 2011. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal . 7 expansive 2013 . Carley, Frances. Drug Testing Welfare Recipients A Review of Potential cost and Savings. Lansing, 2012. Carpenter, David H. Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits. Report. 2013. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Fourth Amendment. n.d. 5 August 2013 . . Fourth Amendment. n.d. 5 August 2013 . Debate.com. Should someone receiving welfare be drug tested? n.d. Iowa State University Study Abroad Center. Stereotypes. 7 June 2011. 21 Augusr 2013 . Kaestner, Robert. Drug theatrical role and AFDC Participation Is There a radio link? May 1996. the National Bureau of ec onomical Reearch. 6 August 2013 . National unification for the Homeless. Substance Abuse and Homelessness. July 2009. National compression for the Homeless. 6 August 2013 . National Institute of Health. NIAAA Researchers Estimate Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse, and dependence Among Welfare Recipients. 23 October 1996. National Institute on Alocohol Abuse and Alocoholism. 7 August 2013