Thursday, August 9, 2012

Not the Most Efficient Method...

        A Commentary made by Seth Arteaga on July 27th, 2012 focuses on the proposal of drug testing for the recipients of the welfare. The author stated, “The idea of giving someone else's hard earned tax dollars to someone who doesn't have a job is bad enough, but to think they could go spend that money on drugs is even worse.” The author seems to firmly believe that not all welfare recipients deserve to receive the aid. He wishes to “weed out” the ones who are likely to use the money on drugs. He believes the screening is not very costly. He provides a quote from a credible political figure, Jack Kingston, in order to enhance his argument. He also provides a link, from which he gathered numerical statistics on welfare, in order for the readers to receive more information. His Overall, his argument seems a bit weak. He does not elaborate on his argument, and does not provide additional reasons for his argument.

         While a reader may be convinced by his commentary, if one does more research, he/she will find that his argument is not very credible. Some extra research showed sources that challenged his argument. According to an article, Californian employers and Insurance companies paid nearly $100 million for drug tests in 2011, and the cost is expected to approach $150 million this year. Drug testing is already expensive, but the problem is that the drug testing cost is rising significantly every year.

          I do agree with him in that it might just be a waste of money to give a drug-user to continue using drugs instead of using the money for a new start. However, it would be too costly for the state to require drug-testing on every recipients of welfare. Besides, there are many ways to avoid getting caught by the testing by using “detox” medicine, or even simply drinking a lot of water. I believe the state should explore other options to distinguish the drug-users from the deserved recipients. 

No comments:

Post a Comment