Drug Testing Welfare Recipients †Article Analysis Essay

Jonathon Walters reservoir of Should Welfargon Recipients be Drug well-tried? published an article on exhibit 13, 2012 for Governing The State and Localities that provided readers with several points of worry when discussing medicate examen social benefit recipients. Walters states in his article According to the National collection of State Legislatures, almost two dozen states atomic number 18 con berthring measuring rods that require do drugs scrutiny those either applying for or receiving public benefits, a policy that has been cut down in the courts before because the Fourth Amendment grants that every individualist be secure in their persons, houses, written document and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug time-tested? para 1.) This split explains that states are having difficulty passing this bill because the government feels that it violates Americans fourth amendment.Walters brings up arguments from two a f avoring side and an debate side. Favoring sides would not want to piss someone government benefits if they are utilize the benefits to support a drug garment and could save the government money by denying applicants. The opposing side feels that drug examination would come to a great write down to the government and rather than drug testing an individual who needs attend because of their drug addiction other programs such as rehab would save money to local, state and national governments. The author feels that both(prenominal) are ingenuous arguments.To further continue on the opposing side of drug testing offbeat recipients Walters explains that Drug testing is expensive. Tests woo anyplace from $35 to $75 to administer, according to the liberal-leaning magnetic core for Law and Public Policy. By their math, it would cost anywhere from $20,000 to $77,000 to catch one drug abuser. (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug well-tried? para. 4). On the favoring side legislators have a different calculation and use bear witness that biometric screenings such as finger printing process lower numbers of participation among welfare recipients. States that do not participate in finger printing have more(prenominal) people applying for welfare. Walters feels that this would be a cynical way of lowering costs. Opposing sides to a fault feel by isolating those who are at risk, for example ex-felons may glide by them down a incorrectly pathway again because applying for welfare is much harder, therefore, be the government more money by putting them back in send back and providing them with treatment.Walters asks how will the government determine who receives welfare and how do we make sure that the wrong person doesnt receive it? applied science will help determine that mistakes wint be made. The public, in general, supports providing help to those who really need it. In that regard, states and localities are developing much more microscopic tools mostl y thanks to improved tuition technology to ensure that only those who particularize for benefits receive them (and, not incidentally, to ensure that those providing service arent gaming the system). (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug Tested? para. 8).Overall, Jonathon Walters remains soggy throughout the article and provides detailed rebuttals for both opposing and favoring sides. He agreed that both sides had good arguments and in the end it would be up to America in the yearn run to decide what is best for its people.ReferencesWalterss, J. (2012, touch 13) Should Welfare Recipients Be Drug Tested? Governing The States and Localities. Retrieved from http//www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/testing-welfare-recipients-drugs.html