Out of Class Essay 2
Name: Toan Vu
Class: English 49 (Tuesday 6:35 – 9:45)
Instructor: Mariam Kushkaki
Date: 04/08/2014
There is controversy about using drug testing for welfare recipients to identify drug addict over states in the United States, and still there are many concerns, so just few states apply it. Still there are a lot of different opinions about it for instance Kasha Kelly, The Kansas state House representative, in Michelle Price’s “2012-2013 data shows only 12 test positive in Utah welfare drug screening” believes that checking people on public assistance for drugs would not only save money, they argue, but put welfare recipients on firmer footing when they get ready to enter the working world. But, Liz Schott, a welfare expert with center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Alan Greenblatt’s “Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?” argues testing violated the constitutional ban against unreasonable search and seizure. In my opinion, California should test welfare applicants for drugs because it saves money, it helps abusers, and it is constitutional
Although money we spend on the test is high -- $75 or less for individual drug tests and more than $20,000 for every individual user discovered, it saves a lot of money because of the scores of applicants who walked away rather than submit to the scrutiny. The preliminary data from August 2012 through July 2013 of Utah indicates given 4,730 applicants a written test in that there are only 466 were drug tested and 12 tested positive, and Wilson pointed out that 24 percent of applicants which is about 247 applicants did not continue in the application process. Average three-person household receives $498 per month in cash assistance and with 247 applicants we save almost $1.5 million a year. According the data from Arizona, “Arizona believes that the welfare saves $1.7 million a year from people who preserving their constitutional rights refuse answering the questions about drug use.” In the United
Class: English 49 (Tuesday 6:35 – 9:45)
Instructor: Mariam Kushkaki
Date: 04/08/2014
There is controversy about using drug testing for welfare recipients to identify drug addict over states in the United States, and still there are many concerns, so just few states apply it. Still there are a lot of different opinions about it for instance Kasha Kelly, The Kansas state House representative, in Michelle Price’s “2012-2013 data shows only 12 test positive in Utah welfare drug screening” believes that checking people on public assistance for drugs would not only save money, they argue, but put welfare recipients on firmer footing when they get ready to enter the working world. But, Liz Schott, a welfare expert with center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Alan Greenblatt’s “Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?” argues testing violated the constitutional ban against unreasonable search and seizure. In my opinion, California should test welfare applicants for drugs because it saves money, it helps abusers, and it is constitutional
Although money we spend on the test is high -- $75 or less for individual drug tests and more than $20,000 for every individual user discovered, it saves a lot of money because of the scores of applicants who walked away rather than submit to the scrutiny. The preliminary data from August 2012 through July 2013 of Utah indicates given 4,730 applicants a written test in that there are only 466 were drug tested and 12 tested positive, and Wilson pointed out that 24 percent of applicants which is about 247 applicants did not continue in the application process. Average three-person household receives $498 per month in cash assistance and with 247 applicants we save almost $1.5 million a year. According the data from Arizona, “Arizona believes that the welfare saves $1.7 million a year from people who preserving their constitutional rights refuse answering the questions about drug use.” In the United