Persuasive Essay On Mandatory Drug Testing

Last year, I started my first real summer job. I had to attend orientation, complete a physical and submit a drug test. All of these were requirements for me to obtain my job. If I were to fail my drug test, I would not have been able to obtain employment in order to weed eat all day, as this is ultimately what my job consisted of. Of course I passed my drug test, but I find it very aggravating that I, in order to be able to weed eat all day, had to supply a drug test when there are people who are getting free money from the government and they do not. It is my opinion, that everyone who is receiving any kind of assistance from the government should have mandatory drug testing done. In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the signed
the Social Security Act of 1935, as a result of the Great Depression (LeVert). By signing this Act, President Roosevelt made the government responsible for the well being of its citizens. However, the welfare system, as we know it today, didn’t actually take force until 1960-1973. It was during this time that the programs that already existed under President Roosevelt to get people out of poverty, were not actually working. There were still about 40-50 million people that were without adequate food, shelter, employment, and medical care (LeVert). In 1961, President John F. Kennedy was elected President and he made it a point to the American people that the “hand of hope must be extended to the poor and depressed” (LeVert). The intent of President Kennedy and President Johnson, with his war on poverty in 1964, was not to hand out cash assistance, but to empower Americans with the skills and experience they need to rise above poverty. It was during this time that the Food Stamp Act was created to help provide adequate nutrition for Americans (LeVert). The Food Stamp Act gave low income Americans vouchers for food. Amendments were also made to the Social Security Act that allowed medical care, not only for the elderly, but also low-income individuals and families. Till 1973, there were many more changes to the welfare system that brought about the welfare explosion. As a result of these changes, the number of recipients approved for welfare went from 33% in 1960 to 90% in 1971 (LeVert). It wasn’t until 1980, when President Reagan was elected, that the first push to reform welfare was spoken of (LeVert). Reagan recognized that there were individual that did not need the assistance and was abusing the system. As President, he promised to rid the welfare system of “cheats and freeloaders” and remove all but the “truly needy” from the program. Despite his attempts, the reform did not happen and the economy began to suffer. The second attempt to reform welfare happened with the Clinton administration. 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (D. Vitter). The reform put a limit of 5 years of assistance, gave states incentive to create jobs and said that able bodied recipients had to get a job within two years. Clinton also gave more money to help with daycare cost so that people could go to work. Although this was a good thing at the time, it does not seem that it is being enforced today. As a result, the welfare system today is in need of serious reform. One of the biggest arguments right now within the system is the use of drug testing to determine eligibility. In 2007, Robert Wood Johnson reported that approximately 20 percent of temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) reported having used a drug substance in the last year and 5 percent admitted that they had a substance addiction (D. Vitter). I have to ask myself, how is this possible? We, as taxpayers, are working to pay ultimately 25 percent of the people on welfare to use drugs. So why isn’t drug testing mandatory for those receiving assistance from the government? According to an article in the U.S. News Digital Weekly, it is stated that mandatory drug testing is ultimately unconstitutional (Gupta). There have been 36 states in the past year to introduce legislation that would require drug testing on anyone receiving public assistance. Florida was one of these states. The law passed but was blocked by a federal judge. The biggest reason this was blocked by the judge wasn’t because it was unconstitutional but because of the money that was spent on administering the drug test. When a person receiving assistance takes a drug test and passes it, they have to be reimbursed by the government. The article states that the assumption that there are more people on assistance using drugs than those that are not receiving assistance was proven to be wrong (Gupta). However, they, according to this article, took the drug use of Floridians not on assistance 12 years and up. They compared this to the Floridians on assistance who have to be at least the age of 18 to receive it. There is a 6 year gap of potential drug use there. This, in my opinion, was not a fair poll. The judge also noted that the Fourth Amendment was being abused under the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not agree with this. I feel that recipients of the welfare program need to be drug tested, just as I do, because, quite honestly, some make a living off of the government. In the book, Welfare- Opposing viewpoints, there is a lady named ”Welfare Queen” who described how she abused the system and admitted that she wasn’t the only one (Haley). If the government isn’t going to enforce the people who are abusing the system, then they at least should give it to the people who are law abiding citizens and not spending the money carelessly. According to an article from the Debate Club, the government spent $900 billion on the welfare system (Rector). The future spending of welfare is estimated to reach $1 trillion a year. The welfare system is not an entitlement but was intended to be a self-help program. It was not made to be a means to solely support your family. And as any job, if you are going to get paid, you have to give something back in return. The recipients of today are not giving anything back. The least they can do is to prove they are not using drugs while someone else is paying for them and their families to live. When Florida required drug testing for welfare applicants, the enrollments decreased by as much as 48 percent (Rector). That tells me that 48 percent of the people were doing some type of drug that would keep them from receiving assistance. This is no different than me going to work and having a random drug test and being fired for doing drugs. It’s the same principle. I do not see how this could be unconstitutional. Along with just being the ethical thing to do, administering drug testing to welfare recipients will help those individuals, as well. The whole purpose of the welfare system was to provide people with the skills and experiences to become employable. How can a person on drugs become employed? Not possible. There are not enough jobs out there right now for a person to take themselves out of the chance of a job because of drugs. And the government allowing these individuals to remain receiving assistance doesn’t give them a reason to want to quit. They are not being held responsible and in turn are not fulfilling the sole purpose of the welfare system, to gain employment and become self-sufficient. Although some states have not passed any laws to support drug testing, there are currently 9 states that have (Grovum). Kansas and North Carolina did just last year. This is a growing concern and issue within the government and it’s not going away. Within the last 5 years, the need to drug test recipients of welfare has gained momentum (Grovum). Because of the judge’s decision in Florida to say that it was unconstitutional, some states are becoming smarter in how they approach this problem and how they present it so that it cannot be challenged and struck down. The main reason for this is because the taxpayers of the United States are getting tired of giving handouts to individuals who don’t deserve it (Grovum). In conclusion, the welfare system needs a major overhaul.
When the American taxpayer, who is paying taxes to provide money for others in this country , has to provide a drug test in order to get a job, then the recipients of the money should have to do the same. If a taxpayer can get fired for doing drugs will working then a recipient of welfare should be kicked out of the system for testing positive for drugs. The system itself was put in place to provide assistance for those that needed it, not to become a way of life. This kind of lifestyle is generational. The children of these parents see their parents abusing the system and they are taught to do the same thing. So completing a drug test on a welfare recipient not only will help them to get off of the drugs and ultimately out of the system but will make the parents of the children be accountable for their children and hopefully breaking the generational thought that living off of the government is ok. Something has to be done, the government cannot continue to support and fund this program and neither can the American people. It is coming down to each person taking care of themselves. If the government does not do this and eliminate the applicants available for the help, everyone will ultimately suffer, worse than it is
now.

Works Cited
Grovum, Jake. "USA Today." 6 March 2014. Some states still pushing drug testing for welfare.

Gupta, Vanita. "Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested For Drugs?" U.S. News Digital Weekly (2011): 14. Business Source Premier.

Haley, James. Welfare- Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

LeVert, Marianne. The Welfare System. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1995.

Rector, Robert. "US News." 15 Dec 2011. Debate Club.

Vitter, Davie. "US News and World Report." 15 December 2011. Debate Club. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfa.