Drug Testing for Welfare - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

drug testing for welfare n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Drug Testing for Welfare PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Drug Testing for Welfare

play fullscreen
1 / 10
Drug Testing for Welfare
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Drug Testing for Welfare

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Drug Testing for Welfare What Can Be Done?

  2. Whats Welfare? Welfare: (noun)- Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need. -Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment.

  3. Intro -1.6 million families receive welfare in the US -492 billion government dollars go towards programs like welfare - Bills have recently been introduce that would require those receiving welfare to be drug tested before receiving benefits.

  4. Thesis A solution for this is that those with prior drug offenses should be required to take drug tests; if they test negatively they will be refunded the cost of the test, if they test positively for drugs they must complete counseling and be retested before receiving further government assistance.

  5. Pro Drug Testing • “Receiving a public benefit is a privilege not a right.” • Reduce the number of welfare recipients on drugs - Get those who are help • Save money

  6. Anti Drug Testing • Gives recipients a bad name • Violates 4th amendment rights • Costs more than it’s saving

  7. Mediation • Drug test those with prior history ONLY • Saves states money on tests • Not unconstitutional • Each state is responsible for deciding.

  8. __X___Overall Comments: A teacher has to wonder — why wasn’t such excellence on display in the Mediation paper? Were you still on break, writing? Here the work is up to your usual standard, clearly defined from the outset, effectively balanced throughout the pro-&-con (very good on the economic issues on one hand, & on the other very good considering the 4thAmendm’t). Your use of the FL case was also savvy & well laid-out. My one misgiving is that you used no pictures at all. Still, the Q’s from the response team did nothing to detract from the impact, & they submitted a fine report, a “plus,” though they say “argue” when they mean “agree.” A or 95.

  9. Response Team Kaleigh’s mediation covered the issue of drug testing for recipients. The government spends approximately $492 billion on the 1.6 million families that receive welfare. She explained that those on the pro side are right in their thought, “Welfare is a privilege, not a right.” The states aim to get help for those on drugs, hopefully reducing those numbers, and saving money for the state. Opponents claim that it gives the recipients a bad name, violates the Fourth Amendment, and it ultimately costs more than it saves. Kaleigh mediated that a solution for this problem is that those with prior drug offenses should be tested and then reimbursed and if they test negative, they will receive counseling and further assistance. Some problems that we noticed with her presentation was that she didn’t cover those who have been regular drug users, but have no prior history because they have not been caught. In the mediation, she never covered the issue of giving recipients a bad name through testing. Kaleigh explained that it is not a big group getting a bad name, but those who are priors are. We agree with her that the drug testing in her mediation does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the law enforcement officials have probable cause and exigent circumstances, which is enough to search and seize without warrant. We argue with her mediation, even if it was one-sided, because in situations like these, it is hard to have a two-sided opinion.