Welfare Drug Testing, Worth the Dollar?

Fifteen U.S. states have passed legislation regarding welfare recipients to be tested for drugs. There are numerous benefits to holding individuals on welfare accountable by helping drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. At least twelve states include language requiring testing only if there is reasonable cause to believe the person is using illegal substances. Providing treatment for those testing positive rather than immediately terminating financial assistance is a large step toward authenticating government aid, expediting citizens getting off welfare, as well as simply for health-related improvements.                                   

While opponents argue that this mandatory drug test is a waste of money, this is an efficient and reasonable allocation of taxpayer’s money. The government provides money for a specific purpose, to ensure that low economic class American's have sufficient resources, and we want to ensure that the taxpayer’s dollar is being used for that purpose rather than taking advantage of the government check.  With results from drug tests, the government can understand specific situations and help these citizens more effectively, provided with more information. It is reasonable to expect that the people receiving welfare assistance should be held to certain standards in order to ensure the temporary nature of the assistance and to lead to their quick re-entry into the workforce.

Individuals who apply for jobs, many are required to be drug tested, why should a welfare recipient be excluded from this requirement? These steps toward independence prepare (hopefully) potential employees with real standards they must meet in job requirements.

Accountability is what we as American citizens hold our government responsible for to maintain the freedom and equality of this country. Ensuring that the government assistance is being utilized wisely with drug testing on welfare recipients benefits not only the taxpayer of effective allocation of taxes but also the low economic class citizen to continue in taking steps away from government benefaction and into the workforce.

Should We Diagnose This Behavior?

A professor and sociologist with the username, Socdoc216, wrote an editorial on How the Media Normalized Trump's Mental Illness and put Democracy at Risk on Daily Kos’s blog. I find this title in and of itself ironic being that the more popular, left-leaning media floods social media and the news to demote President Trump by focusing on his irrational behavior.  Socdos216's main concern in this excerpt is the likelihood of President Donald Trump leading America with a mental illness.       

The article begins with defining the attributes in Donald Trump as closely related to those of a mental disease such as “his fondness for telling irrational but occasionally entertaining whoppers has also obscured…the extent to which Trump is mentally ill” (par. 2), meaning that Americans should associate ridiculous accusations with a mental illness. Trust me, I’m not the biggest fan of our new POTUS, but I most definitely do not agree with deeming him mentally ill nor incapable. Who are we to judge another’s actions to the extent of their mental fortitude? You would think, health professionals and physiatrists, right? But lo and behold, Socdoc216 contests these logical ideas with the argument that “one need not be a credentialed psychologist or psychiatrist to recognize…mental illness” (par. 4). Discussing mental diseases is very sensitive and easily offensive to far too many people, let alone accusing another of being mentally incapable of performing his duty BECAUSE of this mental illness is treading on thin ice.     

Socdoc216 is a credible author and makes valid opinions of our president, but with large allegations such as these against President Trump, it is very easy to offend and stoop to low levels of proving a point. Even if professionals diagnosed the POTUS, there is nothing written in the constitution prohibiting anyone physically or mentally for being in office, we the people set the standards for our presidents, we have our own specifications to judge who should oversee America.