Drug Testing Welfare Recipients †Article Analysis Essay

Jonathon Walters root of Should benefit Recipients be do drugs tried? published an article on March 13, 2012 for Governing The subject and Localities that provided readers with several points of interest when discussing drug scrutiny eudaimonia recipients. Walters states in his article According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, almost two dozen states are considering files that require drug interrogatory those either applying for or receiving public benefits, a policy that has been cut mess in the courts before because the Fourth Amendment grants that every individual be unspoiled in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug Tested? para 1.) This paragraph explains that states are having difficulty passing this bill because the political sympathies feels that it violates Americans 4th amendment.Walters brings up arguments from both a favoring side and an oppose side. Favoring sides would not want to give someone government benefits if they are using the benefits to support a drug habit and could present the government money by denying applicants. The opposing side feels that drug examination would come to a great expense to the government and rather than drug testing an individual who needs help because of their drug addiction former(a) programs such as rehab would save money to local, state and federal governments. The agent feels that both are good arguments.To further continue on the opposing side of drug testing well-being recipients Walters explains that Drug testing is expensive. Tests terms anywhere from $35 to $75 to administer, according to the liberal-leaning Center for Law and cosmos Policy. By their math, it would cost anywhere from $20,000 to $77,000 to catch one drug abuser. (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug Tested? para. 4). On the favoring side legislators have a different calculation and use evidence that biometric screenings such as experience printing lower numbers of participation among welfare recipients. States that do not participate in finger printing have more battalion applying for welfare. Walters feels that this would be a cynical way of lowering costs. Opposing sides overly feel by isolating those who are at risk, for example ex-felons whitethorn lead them down a wrong path again because applying for welfare is much harder, therefore, costing the government more money by set them back in jail and providing them with treatment.Walters asks how will the government determine who recovers welfare and how do we make sure that the wrong person doesnt receive it? Technology will help determine that mistakes wont be made. The public, in general, supports providing help to those who really need it. In that regard, states and localities are growing much more precise tools mostly thanks to improved teaching technology to go over that only those who qualify for benefits receive them (and, not incid entally, to ensure that those providing services arent gaming the system). (Should Welfare Recipients be Drug Tested? para. 8).Overall, Jonathon Walters remains neutral 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 long run to decide what is scoop for its people.ReferencesWalterss, J. (2012, March 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