Saturday, May 25, 2019

Drug Testing for Welfare

The force back for Drug Testing of Welf be Recipients coupled States law put to workrs face atomic number 53 of the most pressing issues of our fourth dimension- benefit reform. New screening work ates, oft considered a direct violation of primitive rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the figure of administering medicine testing to welf atomic number 18 recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers to a greater extent silver in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve moreover the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to treasure the constitutional rights of potential offbeat recipients, fall in States awmakers should avoid further roughshodizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide public assistance registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation calling for drug testing to achieve welfare benefits. Bri an Kelley answer fors that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial tone ending 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 flow, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have engaged illegal substances well below the national engagement post 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 aside 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 brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do non lielittle evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will fork out money. Striving to prove that the main extraction 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 ballpark 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 platitude 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 questioning and writing about Just that. match to Gustafson, The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to return economic security to defenceless members of society (644). Because of the misuse of welfare finances by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminalsas lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United State s government has spent billions of dollars in an enterprise to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the welfare organization. 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 kindred 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 incursion 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 embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal records The financial tuition she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and immunity 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 out front 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. just about believe that it is not the quest to present money th at 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 pursuance to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavy 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 loom who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the policy-making 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 vexs in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only lawmaker with these corporations in his pocket. GOP representative 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 outmatch 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 sensible 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, around weltare recipients . were casual marijuana users who didnt meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most nice 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 mover 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.Drug Testing 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 calling 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 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 continue to work fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Law makers 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 vulnerable 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 f act 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 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 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 Fra nchise 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 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 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.