A second opposing viewpoint is that drug testing is racist and stereotypes recipients as drug abusers .
While some may view drug screening of government assistance applicants as stereotyping it is important to realize that the individuals proposing drug screening are not forcing anyone to undergo screening. Applying for government assistance is a voluntary recess accompanied by rules and regulations, similar to applying for government jobs. You must undergo a presence process before you can be accepted. The proposal for drug screening will simply be part of the prescribing process.With regards to racism playing a part in drug screening, if mandatory drug screening were implemented there would be no possibility for racism to occur. If random screening, or “reasonable doubt” screening were implemented, there would be a possibility for racism to become a factor. Eliminate the risk now and make pre-assistance drug screens mandatory.
A third opposing viewpoint regarding drug testing is that it is illegal and unconstitutional. The UCLA maintains that random and mandatory drug testing violates an applicants right to privacy, as well as their right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.Despite a drug testing clause being specifically written into the PRIOR law, local courts have deemed previous attempts at drug screening to be unconstitutional.
If the government were to write into the contract for drug screening that all applicants would receive a pre-benefit health screening to detect for illegal absence abuse, and voluntary application for benefits would be acceptance of the terms, there could be no claims of constitutionality. It would not be unreasonable search In June 1999, Fox News sponsored a telephone survey conducted by Opinion Dynamics. 924 registered voters responded to the survey.At that time, approximately 68% of the sample group supported mandatory drug testing, with 27% opposing it, and 5% being undecided. A similar survey, conducted in July 2011 by Rasmussen Reports, revealed similar results. Of 1 ,OHO voters polled, 53% believe all applicants should be tested, 13% believe est. should be random, and 29% if there is reasonable suspicion.
A third survey, conducted in April 2012 by Mrs.. Springs again showed similar results with approximately 66% of voters supporting mandatory drug testing and 89% of voters supporting drug test under certain circumstances. So why do people feel so strongly about these drug tests?One reason for support of mandatory drug testing is the idea of government assistance funds being spent on drugs.
Many supporters feel assistance shouldn’t be given to people who don’t need it or are going to Waste it, with the argument that if they can afford to buy drugs then they onto need the government’s help. According to Republican Senator David Bitter of Louisiana, a 2007 report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation states that approximately 20% of T INFO receiving families admitted to having used drugs within the previous year, with 5% of those families admitting to an addiction.Another reason for mandatory drug testing is that some professions, such as the military, require drug testing as a prerequisite to continued employment, so government assistance should as well . Supporters of this theory believe that since they are being subjected to drug tests just so they an work, people accepting free government handouts should be subject to the same scrutiny.
A third reason for mandatory drug testing is the previously mentioned financial gain aspect.According to Georgia House Representative Jason Spencer, a mandatory’ drug testing law in Florida reduced welfare applications by 48%, saving the state two million dollars in just five months In closing, it’s important that we look past the false statements and weak arguments of the opposition to mandate drug testing for applicants. Long- This speech is the property of Jonathan Hoffman and may not be reproduced or directly sampled without written consent.