The welfare recipients are not entitled to be tested for drugs under the constitution, thus it is against their human rights (Brieland, Costin, & Atherton, 1975).
The plan to test all welfare recipients should be opposed since it is going to be expensive to the government, thus burdening tax payers (Dora, n.d.). Drugs test imbursement is expensive and recent reports put the cost of testing one individual as ranging between $30 to $ 35. As much as they try to balance the calculations so that an individual using drugs is denied the money, it is assumed that the government will save up to $134 monthly. However, this is just an assumption that is not yet proven (Rubin & Babbie, 2012).
The law is among the bad ideas that are recycled time and again. First, this law has been put down in the courts before because the first amendment grants that every individual is secure in their houses and prisons. These arguments include that the government should benefit people’s drug habit. Another one argues that in times of tight budget, screening out the population of undeserving applicants could save the government lots of money (Freind, 2012). This is not right as people who are addicted to drugs need help. States like Taxes, which prides itself on being tough on crime, have come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to treat addicts than to lock them out. Some scholars argue that screening recipients for drug abuse is quite a cynical way of cutting short term costs (Ashman, 2012). According to Lubbers (2011), the problems associated with welfare are not brought about by the welfare, and the welfare program can be improved. However, punishing those in the Welfare program by introducing drug test to keep some of them out is not proper. Instead, supporting them even more will help, as it might help them escape circumstances that lead to higher drug use (Rick, William, &