classical Argument position essay

This assignment requires you to write a position paper using the classical argument structure.Topic: Should people on welfare be required to submit to drug testing?(I believe it should be a requirement)There are five requirements for the Classical Argument Position Paper:Write a classical argument position paper of 750-850 words.Include a title page, headers, and page numbers in correct APA format.Cite at least four different sources in your paper.Use the following organization for your paper:Get the reader’s attention by means of an interesting, engaging introduction.Give the necessary background information so the reader understands the issue.Clearly state your position.Provide a forecast of your main points in the paper.Clearly state the reasons that support your position and support each reason with appropriate and sufficient evidence.Summarize one major objection and effectively respond to it.Provide a strong conclusion that summarizes your argument, calls for action and/or leaves a powerful impression.Use appropriate APA style documentation for in-text citations and a separate references list at the end of the paper.The list of sources must contain:The subject of your research, which you must state at the top of the page.Seven sources of information about your subject, including:At least two articles from one or more databases in the Hunt LibraryAt least one scholarly article.(BOTH A & B are sources are ATTACHED)= 3 SOURCESSOURCE 4 https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-24/logic-behind-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients-requires-everyone-be-testedSOURCE 5 http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/NEED SOUCE 6 AND 7 All sources correctly documented in APA style.The entire references list correctly formatted in APA style.Special note: Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for scholarly work. Do not use Wikipedia as a source for this or any academic assignment.
public_assistance__drug_tresting__and_the_law.pdf

drug_testing_for_welfare.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
classical Argument position essay
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

welfare_programs_should_inc….pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

American Journal of Law & Medicine, 40 (2014): 26-84
© 2014 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Boston University School of Law
Public Assistance, Drug Testing, and the
Law: The Limits of Population-Based
Legal Analysis
Candice T. Player †
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………. 27
II. TANF: TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES ……………………. 30
A. Drug Testing and the States………………………………………………….. 31
1. Reasonable Suspicion ……………………………………………………. 31
2. Suspicionless Drug Testing ……………………………………………. 31
III. POPULATION-BASED LEGAL ANALYSIS …………………………………………. 32
IV. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ………………………………………………….. 34
A. The Special Needs Doctrine ………………………………………………….. 35
1. Public Assistance and the Fourteenth Amendment …………….. 42
V. THE LIMITS OF POPULATION-BASED LEGAL ANALYSIS ……………………. 45
A. The Government Interest ……………………………………………………… 46
1. The Probability of Harm ………………………………………………… 46
2. The Nature and Severity of the Harm ………………………………. 52
B. The Nature and Intrusiveness of the Search …………………………….. 55
1. A Fourth Amendment Perspective …………………………………… 56
2. A Public Health Perspective …………………………………………… 58
C. Effectiveness ……………………………………………………………………… 60
1. Taxpayer Subsidy of Illegal Drug Use ……………………………… 60
2. Drug Use and Employment ……………………………………………. 62
3. Child Abuse and Neglect ……………………………………………….. 63
4. Population-Based Analysis …………………………………………….. 64
5. The Least-Intrusive Alternative ………………………………………. 65
D. The Individual Interest in Privacy …………………………………………. 68
1. A Fourth Amendment Perspective …………………………………… 68
2. A Public Health Perspective …………………………………………… 69
†
Stephanie and Michael Naidoff Fellow in Medicine, Law and Policy, University of
Pennsylvania Law School & the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of
Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania 2013; Ph.D. Ethics and Health Polic y, Harvard University
2013; J.D. Harvard Law School, 2009; MPhil, Criminology, Cambridge University, 2003; A.B.
Harvard College, 2002. The author would like to thank Michelle Mello, Glenn Cohen, Eric Beerbohm,
Wendy Parmet, Steve Joffe, Tobias Wolff, and Theodore Ruger for their assistance in the preparation
of this Article. All errors are my own.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DRUG TESTING, AND THE LAW
27
VI. DRUG TESTING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS ……………………. 71
A. Unconstitutional Conditions …………………………………………………. 71
1. Conditions Overturned ………………………………………………….. 71
2. Conditions Upheld ……………………………………………………….. 73
B. The Fourth Amendment ………………………………………………………. 75
C. Rethinking the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine ………………. 77
1. Coercion……………………………………………………………………… 77
2. Systemic Effects …………………………………………………………… 79
3. A Public Health Perspective …………………………………………… 80
VII. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………. 83
In Populations, Public Health and the Law, legal scholar Wendy Parmet urges
courts to embrace population-based legal analysis, a public health inspired
approach to legal reasoning. Parmet contends that population-based legal analysis
offers a way to analyze legal issues—not unlike law and economics—as well as a set
of values from which to critique contemporary legal discourse. Population-based
analysis has been warmly embraced by the health law community as a bold new way
of analyzing legal issues. Still, population-based analysis is not without its
problems. At times, Parmet claims too much territory for the population perspective.
Moreover, Parmet urges courts to recognize population health as an important norm
in legal reasoning. What should we do when the insights of public health and
conventional legal reasoning conflict? Still in its infancy, population-based analysis
offers little in the way of answers to these questions. This Article applies population based legal analysis to the constitutional problems that arise when states condition
public assistance benefits on passing a drug test, thereby highlighting the strengths
of the population perspective and exposing its weaknesses.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2011, three dozen states considered bills that require applicants to pass a drug
test before they qualify for income assistance through the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families Program (TANF). 1 Several state legislatures have also proposed
bills that would require applicants to pass a drug test in order to qualify for food
stamps, public housing, home-heating assistance, and unemployment benefits. 2 To
date, eight states have passed laws conditioning public assistance benefits on passing
a drug test: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
and Utah.3 Proposals to condition public assistance on passing a drug test have also
1
A.G. Sulzberger, States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 11, 2011),
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/states-adding-drug-test-as-hurdle-forwelfare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0; see also Drug Testing and Public Assistance, NAT’L C ONF. ST.
LEGISLATURES,
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/drug-testing-and-publicassistance.aspx (last updated Apr. 17, 2013) (providing a comprehensive survey of enacted or
proposed drug testing legislation in the states).
2
See, e.g., H.B. 208, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011) (establishing a substance
screening program for adults who receive monetary public assistance, food stamps, or st ate medical
assistance); S. 69, 129th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2011) (establishing a drug -testing
requirement for adults who apply for need-based programs that provide cash assistance, medical
assistance, housing assistance, food assistance, or energy assistance); H.R. 1174, 2012 Leg. Assemb.,
87th Sess. (S.D. 2012) (directing the South Dakota Department of Social Services to screen and test
any adult recipient who is otherwise eligible for TANF or food stamps).
3
ARIZ . R EV. STAT . ANN . § 46-294 (Supp. 2013) (West); FLA. STAT . ANN . § 414.0652 (West
2013); GA. CODE ANN . § 49-4-193 (West 2012); M ICH. C OMP. LAWS ANN . § 400.57e (West 2008);
28
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LAW & MEDICINE
VOL. 40 NO. 1 2014
appeared in the United States Congress. At the federal level, the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 authorizes states to condition unemployment
benefits on passing a drug test and to deny unemployment benefits to anyone who
fails a drug test.4 The Drug Free Families Act of 2011, presently stalled in the House
and Senate, would require all fifty states to deny TANF assistance to anyone who
tests positive for illegal drugs and to anyone convicted of a drug-related crime. 5
Although most states require a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use before
conducting a drug test, Florida and Georgia do not. Both states require a drug test for
all TANF applicants irrespective of drug history or current suspicion of illegal drug
use.6 In Florida, Governor Rick Scott has emphasized the unfairness of asking
taxpayers to subsidize illegal drug use. In a statement to the press, Scott put it this
way: “While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for
Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction . . . . This new law will encourage
personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.”7 In
Missouri, Representative Ellen Brandom echoed Scott’s concerns: “We should
discourage drug use and not reward it.” 8 In another interview, she added: “Working
people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them
that their tax dollars go to support illegal things.” 9
While support for drug testing has largely focused on the unfairness of asking
taxpayers to subsidize illegal drug use, supporters have also invoked other
government interests in drug testing, including a state interest in providing an
incentive for people to stop using drugs. In Georgia, the General Assembly has said
that an important purpose of the drug testing law is to reduce the danger that
children will be exposed to drugs in the home. 10 Other states—including Alabama,
Michigan and Oklahoma—have asserted a state interest in preventing drug-related
child abuse, as well as a state interest in identifying TANF recipients for whom
substance abuse might present a barrier to employment. 11 In addition, both Florida
and Georgia have asserted a state interest in not funding the public health and crime
risks associated with drug use. 12 In response, critics maintain that drug tests are
needlessly intrusive and unfairly single out the poor for a drug test. 13
M O. ANN . STAT . § 208.027 (West Supp. 2013); H.R. 2388, 53rd Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2012) (to
be codified at OKLA. STAT . tit. 230, § 52); S. 2580, 107th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Tenn. 2012) (to
be codified at TENN. CODE ANN. § 71-5-2); H.R. 155, 59th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2012) (to be
codified at UTAH C ODE ANN . § 35A-3-304.5).
4
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 2105, 2012
U.S.C.C.A.N. (126 Stat.) 156, 162-63 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 305).
5
Drug Free Families Act of 2011, S. 83, 112th Cong. § 2.
6
FLA. STAT . ANN. § 414.0652 (West 2013); GA. C ODE ANN. § 49-4-193 (West 2012).
7
Press Release, Rick Scott, Governor of Fla., Governor Scott Fulfills Campaign Promise to
Require Drug Screening for Welfare Recipients (May 31, 2011), available at
http://www.flgov.com/2011/06/03/governor-scott-fulfills-campaign-promise-to-require-drugscreening-for-welfare-recipients/.
8
Martin Karamra, Drug Testing Welfare Recipients, CBS (Apr. 13, 2011),
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/04/13/drug-testing-welfare-recipients/.
9
Sulzberger, supra note 1.
10
GA. CODE ANN . § 49-4-193 (West 2012).
11
Marchwinski v. Howard (Marchwinski II), 309 F.3d 330, 333 (6th Cir. 2002); Brief of the
States of Alabama, Kansas, Michigan & Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant &
Reversal at 18, Lebron v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 710 F.3d 12 02 (11th Cir. 2013)
(No. 11-15258).
12
FLA. STAT . ANN . § 414.0652 (West 2013); S.B. 292, 158th Gen. Assemb., 2011-2012 Reg.
Sess. (Ga. 2012).
13
See, e.g., Press Release, Alcee L. Hastings, Fla. Representative, Gov. Scott’s Targeting of
Welfare Recipients for Drug Screening Misguided (May 31, 2011), available at
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DRUG TESTING, AND THE LAW
29
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the United States Supreme Court has long
held that a drug test constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. 14 In the legal debate surrounding drug testing and public assistance, the
central question is whether drug tests are unreasonable as a matter of constitutional
law.15 Under the special needs doctrine, the Supreme Court has said that a drug test
may be reasonable without an individualized suspicion of drug use when
governments confront “special needs beyond the normal need for law
enforcement.”16 In Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court articulated a strong public
safety rationale for the special needs doctrine. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the
Supreme Court held that “where the risk to public safety is substantial and real,”
suspicionless searches may be reasonable; however, where “public safety is not
genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search no
matter how conveniently arranged.” 17 Yet, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have
strained to place the government interest in a suspicionless search within the scope
of the public safety exception, while also suggesting that the special needs doctrine
might encompass government interests beyond a government interest in public
safety. 18
How should we think about this? In Populations, Public Health and the Law,
legal scholar Wendy Parmet urges courts to embrace population-based legal
analysis, a public health inspired approach to legal reasoning. 19 Parmet contends that
population-based legal analysis offers a way to analyze legal issues—not unlike law
and economics—as well as a set of values from which to critique contemporary legal
discourse.20 Population-based analysis has been warmly (and rightly) embraced by
the health law community as a bold new way of analyzing legal issues. 21 Still,
population-based analysis is not without its problems. At times, Parmet claims too
much territory for the population perspective. Moreover, Parmet urges courts to
http://alceehastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=327803
(quoting
Congresswoman Corrine Brown who argues that drug tests for welfare recipients amount to “strip
searching our state’s most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for
financial support during these difficult economic times”).
14
U.S. CONST . amend. IV; Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 -17 (1989)
(“We have long recognized that a compelled intrusio[n] into the body for blood to be analyzed for
alcohol content must be deemed a Fourth Amendment search.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646-47 (1961) (applying the prohibition against unreasonable search es
and seizures to the states).
15
Suspicionless drug tests implicate other constitutional rights, aside from the Fourth
Amendment, including the right to privacy. However, courts have largely addressed suspicionless
drug testing as a Fourth Amendment problem, and at times, an unconstitutional conditions doctrine
problem. Therefore this Article will focus on the Fourth Amendment problems and unconstitutional
conditions problems that arise when governments attempt to condition public assistance benefits on
passing a drug test.
16
Skinner, 489 U.S. at 620 (citing Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 385, 390 (1978)).
17
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323 (1997).
18
See discussion infra Part IV.
19
WENDY E. PARMET, POPULATIONS, PUBLIC HEALTH , AND THE LAW 6 (2009).
20
Id.
21
See, e.g., R ECONSIDERING LAW AND POLICY DEBATES: A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE (John
G. Culhane ed., 2011); Wendy E. Parmet & Anthony Robbins, A Rightful Place for Public Health in
American Law, 30 J.L. M ED. & E THICS 302 (2002); Anthony Robbins, Public Health Literacy for
Lawyers: Teaching Population-Based Legal Analysis, 111 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSP . 744 (2003);
Jonathan E. Selkowitz, Comment, Guns, Public Nuisance, and the PLCAA: A Public Health-Inspired
Legal Analysis of the Predicate Exception, 83 TEMP . L. R EV. 793 (2011).
30
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LAW & MEDICINE
VOL. 40 NO. 1 2014
recognize population health as an important norm in legal reasoning. What should
we do when the insights of public health and conventional legal reasoning conflict?
Part II of this Article provides a brief overview of state efforts to condition
TANF and public assistance on passing a drug test. Part III outlines the fundamental
elements of population-based legal analysis. Part IV discusses the evolution of the
special needs doctrine, while also critiquing much of the doctrine from a public
health perspective. Part V applies population-based legal analysis to the
constitutional problems that arise when states condition public assistance benefits on
passing a drug test, thereby highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of a
population-based perspective. Part VI applies the unconstitutional conditions
doctrine to drug testing of TANF and public assistance recipients, with special
attention to how public health can add to our understanding of the unconstitutional
conditions problem.
II. TANF: TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES
In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC)
and replaced it with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).22 The
overarching purpose of TANF is to move recipients of public assistance from
welfare to work. With few exceptions, PRWORA requires TANF recipients to find
at least part-time work within two years. 23 PRWORA mandates at least twenty hours
of work per week for parents with children over age six, and it also imposes a
lifetime limit of no more than sixty months on the receipt of federal aid, with a state
option for a shorter lifetime limit. 24 States receive TANF block grants and are
required to use those funds in a manner reasonably calculated to accomplish any one
or more of the four TANF program goals: (i) assisting needy families so that
children can be cared for in their homes; (ii) reducing the dependency of needy
parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (iii) preventing out-ofwedlock pregnancies; and (iv) encouraging the maintenance and formation of two parent families. 25
Federal and state laws limit TANF to low-income families in which the
household includes a minor child or a pregnant woman. 26 With few exceptions,
qualified households must demonstrate that their total income is no more than 200%
of the federal poverty level ($37,060 for a family of three in 2011, and $44,700 for a
family of four). 27 Although income assistance is one of the primary benefits of
participation in TANF, the average monthly cash benefit varies widely from state to
state. In 2011, this figure ranged from $753 for a single-parent family of three living
in New York City to $170 in Mississippi. 28 The average benefit for a single-parent
family of three in 2011 was $303 in Florida and $280 in Georgia. 29
22
42 U.S.C. §§ 601-619 (2006).
Id. § 602(a)(1)(ii).
Id. §§ 607(c)(2)(B), 608(a)(7).
25
Id. § 601(a).
26
Id. § 608(a)(1).
27
Id. § 604(3); 76 Fed. Reg. 3637, 3638 (Jan. 20, 2011).
28
IFE FINCH & LIZ SCHOTT , C TR. ON B UDGET & POLICY PRIORITIES , TANF B ENEFITS FELL
FURTHER IN 2011 AND ARE WORTH M UCH LESS THAN IN 1996 IN MOST STATES 10 (2011), available
at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3625.
29
Id.
23
24
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DRUG TESTING, AND THE LAW
31
A. DRUG TESTING AND THE STATES
1. Reasonable Suspicion
PRWORA authorizes, but does not require, drug testing as a condition of
assistance through TANF.30 In the handful of states that have enacted a drug testing
requirement, most require “reasonable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” of drug use
before conducting a drug test. 31 In Arizona, TANF applicants are asked to complete
a recent drug use questionnaire.32 Applicants who admit that they have used drugs
are required to pass a urine test before receiving benefits. 33 Those who fail the urine
test are TANF-ineligible for one year.34 Not surprisingly, few applicants tend to
disclose drug use. Since 2009, when drug testing began in Arizona, only 16 out of
64,000 applicants have admitted drug use, and 931 applicants failed to submit the
form. 35
Given the obvious limitations of screening by self-repo …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15