WR122 March 18, 2012 Drug Testing Right or Wrong? Welfare today is one of the most widely used benefit plans by the government and today more than ever more people are in need of these benefits. There are always people though that abuses these programs and takes advantage of the help out there. The drug welfare reform bill is a good one because of its economic and tax benefits, in addition to the fact that, it will prevent citizens from abusing the system. In these difficult economic times, people are trying to save money and cut expenses that’s including the government.
Public Agenda posted a statistical graph that shows 68 percent of the public agrees with the testing. 27 percent is against it and five percent are not sure how they feel. As a citizen who is on welfare I would gladly do a drug test if it meant that I wouldn’t have food or clothes for my child. This program gives a person the chance to get their life back on track and a new start. It is a win/win all the way around because, It will lower the amount of people on welfare and increase the amount of people that can be personally responsible for themselves by holding a job and being drug
A Drug Free Work Week is an effort from the department of U.S. secretary that promotes important information on being drug-free for the sake of keeping of safe workplaces. Today where we stand with this is there’s lots of money wasted when in turn it could be implemented in a drug-free workplace program and could be saving millions in the process. With the implementation of these programs there are lots of claims that have been reported which could have been stopped or not have happened to begin with. There is lots of lost productivity which is costly and wasting efficiency, time, and money to search for new sober employee’s; when the company has implemented a Drug Free Workplace Program that has educational investments for prevention and assistance programs that pays
However, drug testing can also be costly and at times can risk possible privacy invasions. More and more employers are requiring job applicants and even existing employees to take and pass a test, usually a urine test or a hair sample for illegal drugs. In some industries, such as the transportation industry, the need for a drug-free workplace is obvious. In other industries, employers may justify drug testing on grounds of lower accident rates or less absenteeism (Fleischer, 2004). There are pros and cons to employer drug testing just like everything else in the world.
Maybe "marijuana recovery" should stop being hoisted as propaganda, and should be a service for those few who truly need it. How many alcoholics would go to AA if Prohibition was still in effect? There is a lot of propaganda out there about pot, and all I'm asking for those reading this is to give the argument for (and against) legalization a fair shake, and to not let beliefs founded on propaganda, someone else's moral standards, or beliefs unfounded in fact to sway you. Look at the arguments and decide for yourself. There are plenty of individuals who don't smoke marijuana (or don't smoke it anymore) and still think it should be legalized, so let the facts help you make your decision, not the propaganda.
Jodie Kaser English Composition II 707 Kathleen Gallgher 04-01-2013 Title?!?! When I first thought up my topic I was all for drug testing welfare recipients. If you can be drug tested to work for your money then there should be no problem being drug tested to receive "free” money as well. However, the more I read into the topic I realize that drug testing welfare recipients is not only a violation of the 4th amendment, but based on stereotypes, expensive, and ineffective compared to other treatments as well. Drug testing innocent welfare recipients violates a person’s rights under the 4th amendment.
The omnipresent issue of childhood obesity was always tentative ground for the politicians, but the reigniting of the topic via the new move by the government to restrict and/or limit the sales of “junk food”, and rumors are circulating that the government will monitor the weight of children in the country. “Parent ban may be useful” by Geoff McLean’s letter to the editor; argued that the advertising saturation levels are not technically the major problem, but that the real problem lied with the parents. McLean’s uses an exasperated tone in his letter; this fully comes into play in the last two paragraphs, “instead farming them out to childcare centers or using television or video game as a de-facto
It’s like a toxic candy with poison inside but sweet sugar covering outside. Congress may not be able to predict the consequences, or it could have already recognized the negative outcomes but still chose to continue because the results sound good to people. Raising the minimum wage won’t be efficient unless it’s adjusted sufficiently and accordingly to the movement of market wages and inflation (even by doing so, there will be still a number of job losing but that’s unavoidable). Otherwise, nothing but the opportunity of teenagers –the future of the world- will be damaged. Works Cited Frisby, John.
Jail Time Reduced Crack dealers who were arrested back in the 1980’s should be able to get out of jail sooner. Americans would benefit because they would save money if prisoners were released, prisons wouldn’t be as crowded, and the government would realize that our system is too hard. Americans are working too hard in this economy to be wasting their money on overly aggressive government power. It is cases like these that the government slowly realizes that they have such great power over the country. If Americans don’t start sticking up for what’s right then the government will continue to have full control over the country, whether the United States likes it or not.
The drugs would also be more potent and less contaminated. “Wherever an operation is shut down, a new one is opened up.” He concludes that if efforts could succeed in significantly reducing either the supply of drugs or the demand for them, we would not need to seek change in policy (Is curbing a rising population of users not a success??). He says that due to our repeated failures, there is need for some a change. It seems that based on Nadelman’s perspective, he would argue for the legalization of cognitive enhancing drugs as well as illicit drugs. William Bennett has other