Drug Screening in Government Assistance Programs

do medicates wake in presidential term Assistance curriculumsThe United States Federal Government Should Initiate Drug Screening For Citizens Who Seek Government Assistance.Negative Strategy 1As Pollack, Danziger, Jayakody Seefeldt (2002) affirm, initiating free dug concealment for every(prenominal) citizens seeking administration avail is emphatic eachy costly. The purchase of modern do do mediciness masking providement in numbers that impart be able to cover charge all sight who apply for benefit programs, especially with the large population of America, would certainly be an expensive exercise. In addition, want any other machine, the dose screen equipment leave behind accept regular servicing and maintenance, which require much resources at close intervals. It is as undoubted that in assemble for the screening programs to be successful, medical professionals and technological professionals allow for need to take part. This implies that a competent staf f that comprises of specialists in all relevant sectors of operation and in appropriate numbers go out obligatorily be employed to make the program a success. Appargonntly, the cost of buying the do doses screening equipment, maintaining them, and pay for all the involved expenses including the human resources is to the highest degree possible to exceed the amount of money that the federal official organisation would fork over on implementing drug screening indemnity to persons seeking organizations assistance (Pollack et al., 2002). Similar to Pollack et al. (2002), C bey (1998) emphasizes that the writ of execution of compulsory drug interrogatory policies to citizens who seek for governments assistance is unnecessary, unjustifiable, and the highest level of misappropriation of taxpayers money.The instruction execution of laws that support mandatory drug screening for peck applying for government assistance is unnecessary and misappropriation of taxpayers moneyTherefo re, it unnecessary and unjustifiable that the federal government engages in a more expensive program with intentions to save taxpayers money, as the implementation of the drug screening program will cost a lot more of the taxpayers money than the well-being programs as they currently are (before the implementation of the policy).Fielding, Long, Imam, Tye Ogawa (2002) further states that initiating drug screen for all citizens seeking governments assistance is likely to have very little (negligible) or notwithstanding no effect on the prevalence of drug call in the country. According to Fielding et al. (2002), a majority of people who are financially vulnerable in the United States are not drug addicts. The cost of drugs in the country is relatively expensive for many people belonging to poor population, especially with the high tax rates that the government has implemented on drugs over subsequent years. They also notes that it is much more reasonable for the Federal government to determine the prevalence drug intention in the country by assessing people based in their ages rather than income, as a majority of drug engrossrs fall within the creative ages of between 16 and 40 years (Fielding et al., 2002). Hence, the implementation of drug screening policy, which only demands for mandatory drug testing among the economically vulnerable, is likely coquette an insignificant role in controlling drug go for in the country.Referring to Guthrie (1990), the implementation of the mandatory drug screening initiative for persons participating in welfare programs is unconstitutional and a violation of people rights to privacy and granting immunity to make personal choices. With the drug screening policy requiring that all people needing government assistance must be tested for all sorts of drugs including alcoholic drink and baccy before they can be eligible for the assistance, it is clear that the implementation of the policy will breach the law, especially with the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs in the United States. Provided one has attained the inevitable age, he or she has the right handling drugs that are legal for whichever reasons. Thus, it is unconstitutional and discriminative for the Federal government to deny law-abiding citizens the right to use legal drugs just because they are financially vulnerable and requires assistance from government-sponsored welfare programs.Negative strategy 1Rather than implementing mandatory drug screening policy to all citizens who apply for welfare programs, the government should support awareness creation programs that will discourage all members of the society to desist from drug abuse (DiNardo, 1994). The government should support school-based programs that aim at educating students in all levels of education ranging from elementary, secondary, middle-level colleges, to universities on the dangers of drug use. The government should equally use the mainstream media to run campaigns that discourage drug use while at the like time limit the campaigns on the same media that promote drug use. The federal government should equally compel all drug manufacturers to include antifertility or warning messages on the packages of their products to educate consumers on the negative make of the drugs they are using. Through the creation of consciousness on the need to detest drug use, it is clear that many people will develop an informal motivation to break off drug abuse rather than being compelled to forbear using drugs because one is financially vulnerable.As Pavetti, Olson, Nightingale, Duke Isaacs (1997) points out, drug addiction is like a chronic disease and one hardly, whether willingly or unwillingly, stop the practice overnight. Stopping drug use is a inert process, and drug addicts need to be taken through comprehensive behavior wobble programs that may take up to one or two years. ground on that, the Federal government should construct more rehabilitation facilities and equip them with the necessary human resources and machinery with which to support drug addicts to stop unproductive drug use instead of implementing the dictatorial and illegal drug testing policy on applicants of governments assistance. The access to the rehabilitation programs should equally be enhanced, particularly by making them affordable to all people including the economically vulnerable. Using the behavior change programs where professionals take drug addicts through gradual steps in on how to stop the addiction, it is evident that the government is abut to get better results on drug control than implementing the drug policy, which will require people to forcefully, stop drug abuse in order to be eligible for welfare programs (Pavetti et al., 1997).An alternative strategy to implementing the drug screen policy on citizens needing governments assistance is the formulation and indeed implementation of strict legislations that govern drug use i n the country. As Hora, Schma Rosenthal (1998) support, the use of the legal infrastructure where all people who violate drug laws are punished promptly by the speak to of law is likely to give better results in the fight against drug use. The legislations should provide a platform on which people who take illicit drugs, those who sell drugs to minors, and those who use drugs inappropriately are surely prosecuted and punished by huge fines and even imprisonment sentences. The federal government should improve surveillance on drug abusers and work with the judicial systems to ensure that all violators of drug laws are held responsible for their actions. Through that, people will shun from the illegal use of drugs, and that will help in controlling the prevalence of drug abuse in the society.ReferencesPollack, H. A., Danziger, S., Jayakody, R., Seefeldt, K. S. (2002). Drug testing welfare recipientsfalse positives, false negatives, unanticipated opportunities.Womens health Issues ,12(1), 23-31.Fielding, J. E., Long, A. M., Imam, I. J., Tye, G., Ogawa, P. L. (2002). The drug court programs of Los Angeles County the initial results.A Journal of the Substance Abuse Treatment,23(3), 217-224.Guthrie, P. M. (1990). The Drug Test and Welfare Taking of the Drug War into Unconstitutional Limits.Ind. LJ,66, 579.Carey, C. A. (1998). Crafting of a challenge to the practice of the drug testing welfare participants the federal welfare reform, and state response as one of the most recent chapters in the war against drugs.Buff. L. Rev.,46, 281.DiNardo, J. (1994). The critical review of estimates of the specific costs of alcohol and drug usage. InDrug testing in the workplace(pp. 57-76). Springer US.Pavetti, L., Olson, Nightingale, D., Duke, A. E., Isaacs, J. (1997). Welfare-to-Work Options for Families Facing Personal and Family Challenges Rationale and Program Strategies.Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G., Rosenthal, J. T. (1998). The therapeutic jurisprudence, as well as the dr ug treatment and court movement A Revolutionizing of the response system of the criminal justice to drug abuse, and crime in the U.S..Notre Dame L. Rev.,74, 439.