Backwards Land, likewise known as the United States of America, hosts lots of states that have executed perhaps disadvantageous mandatory drug testing policies that breach personal rights and constitutional liberty. Additionally, such programs are, arguably, an overall waste of money. Those suffering from scrutiny concerning what they opt to ingest are frequently those residing in indigency. Seeking public assistance is now contingent upon the consumption of particular chemicals, however one could say that much better appropriation of funds-- towards tangible options to resolve poverty, for example-- might be more useful, specifically after analyzing the following information.
Millions Spent, for Funzies
According to figures collected by ThinkProgress, "... the seven states with existing programs-- Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah-- are investing countless dollars to ferret out very few drug users." In fact, more worrying is that the stats reveal candidates really check positive for drug usage at a lower rate than the general population, which is 9.4%.
When Arizona started this program in 2009, the state mentioned it was counting on a survey to figure out which of the candidates asking for help had to be checked for drugs. In the time considering that the objective (2009) to save an approximated 1.7 million dollars, 87,000 people have been checked and the outcomes are fascinating, to state the least.
According to USA Today, more than 87,000 well-being receivers went through Arizona's app in the 3 years after it began. The overall variety of drug cheats caught was exactly one-- a single positive outcome, which saved the state exactly $560. [UPDATE: According to numbers offered by the ACLU, the cost of Arizona's drug screening program might be higher than we first reported. The ACLU estimates that each drug test costs $42, bringing the overall cost as high as $3.65 million if all of the new well-being receivers underwent the tests.]
According to Tuscon Weekly, there was "One throughout the first three years of the program, and a grand total of 3 from 2009 to 2014." The results of Arizona's implemented questionnaire and its effectiveness remain in question. Even more, Arizona is not the only example of excessive drug screening.
Ponder this concern while you think about the following data straight from Backwards Land: What do you think your cash should be spent on? Impeding people or helping them?
Results from around the Land:
Candidates for advantages that required drug screening, March 2013-- September 2014: 69,587
Overall needed to take follow-up drug test: 1,646
Disqualified due to a favorable drug test: 69
Adults disqualified for failing to complete needed drug test: 711
Candidates for benefits that required drug screening, August 2012-- July 2014: 9,253
Total required to take follow-up drug test: 1,878
Disqualified due to a favorable drug test: 29
Adults disqualified for cannot complete required drug test: N/A
Applicants for advantages that needed drug screening, July 2014-- December 2014: 11,300
Overall needed to take follow-up drug test: 273
Disqualified due to a positive drug test: 24
Adults disqualified for cannot complete needed drug test: N/A
Who benefits from these drug tests?
Drug testing in the U.S. has actually ended up being a multibillion-dollar industry. A little known fact surrounding state-mandated drug screening is that pharmaceutical companies who make money from the testing are the main groups lobbying for their implementation. Likewise, as huge services begin phasing out drug tests because they are understanding just how much of a waste of cash they are, these same lobbyists are pushing to obtain drug screening into public schools to make up for lost earnings.
One company at the leading edge of the lobbying push for mandatory drug screening is Hoffman-La Roche, which ironically is the same business that produces Valium and other extremely addictive sleeping tablets. This company also invests money to keep marijuana illegal-- and weed is one of the couple of drugs that these tests can dependably find. In fact, a whole trade association (Drug & Alcohol Testing Market Association) has been developed as a front for Big Pharma's lobbying efforts to get as numerous Americans drug checked as possible while ensuring the War on Drugs remains in full-effect.
In Florida, Governor Rick Scott outsourced much of the testing directly to his better half's company, Solantic, which now makes millions from the plan. Gov Scott, being the honorable male that he is, moved his $62 million stake in the company to his other half a couple of months before the drug testing began, making sure there was no conflict of interest. At least that's exactly what we're supposed to think.
Politicians benefit by supplying a falsified option to the really genuine problem of state budget plan shortages. Instead of enacting genuine solutions which would need a great deal of political capital to achieve, (mostly Republican) politicians have the ability to use the bad as a scapegoat, sustained by phony Fox New propaganda. As ironic as it sounds, though, the very so-called repair to wasteful government spending has wound up costing states a lot in this case-- with little or no return on financial investment.
More vital things to focus on here? Why do these households require assistance in the first location? Exactly what if said required tests are actually preventing those who would take advantage of genuine help in battling a dependency from getting help? Exactly what if we designated the funds spent (which is a disconcerting amount) on really assisting individuals reform their lives?
Funding education to teach individuals about all functions of the body, aiding them in their capability to make notified personal health decisions.
Establishing local food forests and education important to growing food all over, empowering people to be more connected to the source of their sustenance.
Alleviating drug addiction as a health concern rather than a criminal problem (alcoholism, nicotine addiction anybody?).
End the conflict of interest in between unique interest groups which lobby to enact laws based upon the sole motivation of increasing their bottom lines.
Interest to the above would partially remove the necessity of providing individuals with food services. Think of if all people had access to genuine, nutritious food. An unbiased appearance at the statistics gathered over the six years that drug testing has been in impact leaves one considering, indeed.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Deprogram Yourself