This topic is on what the last paper that was written for me
Drug Testing Recipients
Drug Testing Recipients
Thesis statement – This paper evaluates how drug testing affects TANF individuals in the United States. The program is undertaken with the aim of keeping out drug users out of TANF. However, drug testing among these people is causing more negative than positive effects.Claim plus reason – An analysis of the consequences of drug testing on TANF individuals in the United States reveals that it causes stigma to those struggling with substance abuse, causes strain to taxpayers and breaks families. Hence, change of this policy is called for since it does more harm than good to American citizens. What type of claim does this represent? This is a claim of value because a proposition is presented as better than an existing one.
How the appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos make the argument more compelling to audience.
To appeal to the audience using logos, ethos, and pathos, I will present the hard facts regarding the adverse effects of drug testing. We will see that the costs of drug testing outweigh the possible benefits. I will also examine the ethical issues arising from the testing of these groups, and the harm that comes to them socially and psychologically as a result of these drug tests.
The parts of the argument based on the Toulmin Model.
Claim – Drug testing on the TANF individuals does more harm than good, both to these people and to the American public and government.
Warrant – Thousands of dollars are being spent on fishing out a few drug users. Moreover, the drug testing results in the stigmatization of people struggling with substance abuse and results in broken families.Qualifiers. How strongly do you believe in the argument? Would any qualifiers be beneficial? Why or Why not? The argument presented has a very strong basis on the facts presented. However, some qualifiers would be helpful as the drug testing can be argued to be beneficial in some senses.
Grounds: The GOP contends that the drug tests will go a long way in ensuring a sober workforce.
Rebuttals: The concrete success of this program is yet to be proven.Identify at least one logical fallacy to which your argument may be susceptible and how you will avoid that fallacy. It is easy to assume the lack of concrete benefits of drug testing among TANF individuals as a mark of failure. To avoid this fallacy, I’m going to present facts and figures giving evidence of the failure of this undertaking.
Drug testing recipients’ policy requires individuals to undergo a thorough medical test screening to ensure that beneficiaries of this aid are drug-free. In this regard, the welfare granted will not be used to engage in drug and substance abuse. The policy provides that one only gets aid after passing the drug test policy. Individual governments that embrace this policy argue that its sole aim is to ensure welfare is used for the right reasons. The right reasons involve not engaging in drug and substance abuse or, worse still, slide back to former substance problem due to the aid received regarding financial assistance. Individuals in the United States believe otherwise. Because of this policy, many anti-drug testing recipient policy campaigns have been launched across America. This is due to reasons that would be highlighted later in this essay. According to a report on Tennessee program, a less percentage failed the drug test. The report showed that only 37 out of 16,017 failed the test. This was equivalent to 0.23% of the total population screened. What does this show? A small percentage of welfare bound individuals are on drugs and substance abuse and changes ought to be made to do away with this policy(Krieg, 2015).Due to the strong opinion against this policy, there have been calls to do away with this policy since many believe that its cost-benefit analysis is in the negative. But what does cost-benefit analysis mean? In layman’s language, cost-benefit analysis is the study of a given process and determining of whether the benefits outweigh the costs and vice versa. Many individuals across the United States of America believe that Drug testing recipient policy is a waste of taxpayers’ money since its benefits are minimal. This essay is in full support of doing away with this policy across ten states of the United States of America. In the year 1966, the United States Congress under the Lyndon Johnson regime passed the major welfare program. The welfare policy created then was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent children. In the welfare programs clause, individuals were and are still required to pass a drug test to automatically qualify for getting this aid. In addition to that, this law required those who tested positive be sanctioned not to receive this aid. However, since then, many persons have had a negative attitude towards it.
First, this policy does more harm than good to the low-class citizens of America. This policy in real sense stigmatizes stereotypes and criminalize the low-class citizens without cause. Studies have shown that the less fortunate who receive welfare are most likely to abuse drugs. This policy increases the shame many poor Americans have over getting assistance hence pushing them further away from looking for aid. Similarly, it makes poor drug users to come out and seek the help they require that might be the medicine for their troubles. Since one may be afraid of losing his or her benefits when he or she discloses his drug problems, many opt to stay away not to get the assistance they are entitled to. The stigma this policy brings forth is unwarranted for, and that is one of the reasons TANF clauses on drug testing should be reviewed (Covert & Israel, 2015).
Second is the issue of wasting of tax -payer’s funds in the name of drug testing. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families policy of drug testing. Even though the drug testing funds do not necessarily come from the pot that would be directed to TANF benefits, the funds would be used elsewhere. The funds would help aid other programs such as infrastructure development and educational investment among others. States such as Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and Mississippi are already spending huge amounts of money to facilitate and rehabilitate a handful of individuals who failed the drug test (Covert & Israel, 2015). The eventual outcome or impact passé is that lots of tax-payer’s money end up facilitating no development projects that can be funded by the health department of the state. Hence drug testing has been a costly venture, and it is the taxpayers that feel the pinch more. However much the government argues that the policy does not cost taxpayers money, a lot of factors are not taken into account (Agorist, 2015). To expound on that, factors such as the cost of paying the staff involved in facilitating this drug test processes are not taken into account. Similarly, factors such as the costs incurred in the paperwork for storing records and statistics is not taken into account. Lastly, the cost incurred in public awareness and the nitty gritty involved in the tracing of drug content in people’s urine is not factored in also. All the aforementioned factors end up being catered for by the taxpayers. This is a reason why this drug testing policy ought to be looked into or done away with in equivalent measures. In this case, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families policy on drug testing’s cost-benefit analysis is negative, and it should be looked into to ensure its benefits outweigh its costs.
Moving forward, the implications of drug testing for TANF qualifications would have a big blow to the children. Children are the future leaders hence appropriate affirmative action should be taken to ensure they grow healthy and accordingly. With reference to TANF policies and procedures, its aim is to ensure families get back on their feet and depend on themselves later after joining the workforce. The financial assistance provided by this policy assists families especially children. In a case scenario, a child depends on his parents or guardians passé. The TANF aid helps parents buy necessities like food and clothing for their children. In the event that a parent fails the drug test and loses out on benefiting from TANF, he or she fails to provide. The effect is felt on his or her own dependents who are the children. The drug testing policy should be reviewed because it disadvantages many families especially the children. A flexible policy should be created to cater for such cases in the event of failure of the TANF drug tests.
Finally, drug testing procedures by TANF are not beneficial since they fail to identify other worse problems such as mental disorder and alcohol abuse. According to a similar drug testing study by the University of Michigan, a majority of persons who tested positive were casual users who had no classifiable addiction. Similarly, these program loopholes include not putting into account persons with mental disorders. By testing for only drug and substance abuse, it failed to factor in other serious problems that are in one way or the other related to the aforesaid. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families loopholes on drug testing and screening make the policy a bad move by federal states has it has more likely ‘liabilities’ than ‘assets’ it purports to address.
Even though the mentioned many are against the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the state governments of the day think otherwise. The state governments argue that helping drug and substance addicts is part of public policy. Hence, incorporation of drug testing procedures in TANF would go a long way in identifying those with the problem and enrolling them in rehabilitation centers. Similarly, because Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a program that aims at shifting low-income individuals from welfare to work, an affirmative action like this would be prudent. An example of personality who is for the adoption and retention of the said policy is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. During the launch of his candidacy on a Republican ticket, the governor asserted that welfare recipients ought to pass drug screening (Delaney, 2015). This he claimed was to be conducted before anybody receives his welfare financial assistance. In the state of Tennessee 37 individuals out of 16000 welfare applicants failed their drug tests. Despite the dubious results in 2015, many states have still considered enacting this bill into law. States such as Kentucky, Iowa, Hawaii, Texas, Oregon, South Carolina and West Virginia among others have advanced this bill in the state Senate (Delaney, 2015). Critics have argued that the Republican Party’s legislation hinder low-income individuals from accessing their financial assistance among other things such as favorable healthcare like the Obama Care. This can be traced back to the year 2009 when newly arrived GOP governor of Arizona suggested that states that had suffered from the 2008 recession would begin testing adults to ensure they were in good shape to receive benefits. Those for this program argue that drug testing is a reasonable measure in ensuring that the public workforce is drug-free for a better America. The Grand Old Party legislations have so far been geared towards making welfare assistance hard for the poor and less fortunate to access. Additionally, they believe it is prudent enough for drug testing since many employers complain of job applicants in most cases failing their drug tests. They also argue that even though the costs of drug testing outweighs the benefits, preventing taxpayers money from supporting substance abuse is worth the cash (Delaney, 2015). Those for it argue on the aforesaid grounds.
In conclusion, the truth of the matter is eminent for all to see. The enacting of this policy in American states would bring more harm than good. ‘Harm’ in this case involves the costs to be incurred now and in the future, the stigma it is alleged to cause, broken families just to mention but a few. The federal governments should review its drug testing policies on TANF beneficiaries to ensure all the loopholes are closed, and foreseen costs factored in appropriately. Serious problems such as mental incapacitation and alcohol abuse problems should also be factored in. Then again, it will be the best decision for Congress and the federal governments to do completely away with drug testing of individuals who need assistance. This would reduce problems of stigma amongst the recipients thereby giving room for persons with drug and substance abuse to ‘come out.’ The cost benefit analysis for this problem is on the negative hence reviewing it or doing away with it are the solutions to improve efficiency in TANF.
Agorist, M. (2015). Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Costs More Than Twice What It Saves. Mint Press News. Retrieved 7 June 2016, from http://www.mintpressnews.com/drug-testing-welfare-applicants-costs-more-than-twice-what-it-saves/210228/
Covert, B. & Israel, J. (2015). What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients. Think Progress. Retrieved 7 June 2016, from http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/
Delaney, A. (2015). 12 More States Are Considering Drug Testing Welfare Applicants. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 June 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/welfare-drug-testing_n_6655712.html
Krieg, G. (2015). When Arizona Decided to Drug Test Welfare Recipients, These Were the Shocking Results. Mic. Retrieved 7 June 2016, from https://mic.com/articles/122607/arizona-drug-tested-welfare-recipients-here-are-the-shocking-results#.QfRUcTbWs