The issue of testing drug for the welfare of the less privileged has been controversial. The discussion tries to establish whether the random screening of the welfare recipients has any benefit to all the stakeholders ranging from the taxpayers, the state, and the beneficiaries themselves. It also focuses on establishing whether the welfare recipients should be screened for drug use before being enrolled for the welfare programs or whether the screening of these people amount to discrimination across the social strata.
On the positive side, testing the welfare recipients for drugs abuse is logical. Most of the pro testing of the welfare recipients for drugs will bring to light those swindling taxpayers money at the pretext of living in hardships. However, economic constrains should not be used to sideline some condemning them along their economic challenges. Screening the welfare beneficiaries will encourage those on the program, who abuse drugs to change their trend. Testing the welfare beneficiaries could only be beneficial if the test is aimed at assisting the less fortunate to mould their life into a more productive and objective life. Regular testing of the welfare beneficiaries is beneficial as it will encourage them to live a drug free life thereby boosting their probability of getting better jobs and moving from the financial support groups. The circulation and purchase of illegal drugs could be minimized considerably. Helping the beneficiaries is like helping their dependants.
On the contrary, testing of the welfare beneficiaries is discriminatory. It is believed to be stereo-typical and unconstitutional. The money wasted for testing the welfare recipients should be used to assist some of them, who face challenges, as well as equipping government institutions that could assist in handling drug abuse cases, such as challenges facing the less privileged. It does not help the dependants. The process could end up being even more expensive than assisting thus wasting most of taxpayers’ money.
Welfare, which aims at improving the lives of the less privileged by the government with the help of the taxpayers, is an honorable program. The argument is that it is prone to abuse if there are no checks introduced.