Drug Testing for Welfare

The Push for Drug Testing of well-being Recipients coupled States lawmakers face unity of the most pressing issues of our metre- eudaimonia reform. New cover song dishes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, bewilder a crap already been enacted in galore(postnominal) disk operating systems. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering medicine testing to upbeat recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers much m one(a)y in the long run, stigmatize applicants and get off the groundicipants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutic companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential offbeat recipients, unite States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the scant(p) by submitting them to medicate testing and/or a nationwide upbeat registry. This year, 29 dry lands induce either proposed or already passed legislation c tout ensembleing for medicine testing to receive we l farthermost-offe benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, some(prenominal) are seeing a great skunk of financial loss as a result of this legislation During the old year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving medicine tests to upbeat recipients.In that meter period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances well below the national use graze of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report In 2012, three age and 87,000 coverts later, only one person had failed a medicate 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 lead the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The meter do not lielittle evidence exists that supports the claim that medicine testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main stem of the medicate problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the eudaimonia program, policymakers continue to work fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as medicine users has become joint 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 uncouthplace 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 pen about Just that. check to Gustafson, The public desire to deter and retaliate eudaemonia cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to unprotected members of society (644). Because of the misuse of well-being funds by a few, the integral underprivileged population has been targeted as criminalsas lazy, medicate abusing sponges.O ver the preceding(a) some(prenominal) decades, the United States government has spent billions of clams in an effort to catch and invite for those who are abusing the offbeat system. This practice is necessary in order to unloosen the upbeat system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are umteen recipients who are not drug users and are still in admit of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential crashicipants to teel uniform they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the finish surgical 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 concentrate place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This i s in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are enter 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 privilege 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 get a single welfare check (645). in that respect is no doubt that those Americans in take on of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, each of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of light drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing use process will only serve to further stigmatize the needyand all in the name of the mighty sawbuck. Some believe that it is not the avocation 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 some(prenominal)(prenominal) 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 true $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from some other(prenominal ) 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). gibe 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 surmount interest. If United States lawmakers really had the lift out interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer re acknowledgments on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the vestigial mental and visible causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, somatogenic health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to liberty and social tunctioning(2) Pollack turtner states, Most weltare recipients . were casual marijuana users who didnt meet back criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most gauzy to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and corporal 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, contrary that of drug use. Pollacks research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and bodily health problems However one runs the add up, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent. Drug Testing for eudaemoniaThe Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New concealment 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 calling for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great address 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 govern of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report In 2012, three days 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 choke the pre-test survey, it brings 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 co ntinue 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 pen about Just that. According to Gustafson, The public desire to deter and visit welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to conquerable members of society (644). Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the complete 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 act on those who are abusing the wel fare system. This practice is necessary in order to disembarrass 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 care 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 recipients 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 enter in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us Her social security number has been matched against state and national crimin al records The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and privilege 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). in that location 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 pharm aceutical 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 political 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 liberty 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 tender 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, conflicting 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.