Cheryl Rhorer, Should drug testing be mandatory in order to receive government benefits, and

would tax payers be willing to pay for these drug tests?, July 3, 2015, Should welfare recipients
be drug tested and should taxpayers pay for the drug tests?, Interview.
In the interview with Cheryl Rhorer I asked her if welfare recipients should take drug
tests in order to keep or receive government assistants of any kind. She replied yes. She stated
that they should not select recipients that have prior convictions of drugs on their record, and all
drug testing selections should be random, so that no recipient would know when they would be
asked to take a drug test. In the interview she states that if a recipient fails a drug test, that they
should lose benefits for a limited time such as three months, if they prove that they have received
helped and they are also able to pass another drug test, then the state should approve those
recipients to be able to get their benefits reinstated, and the recipients are responsible for paying
for their drug tests after that. If children are involved in the case, the children should remain on
medical at least, and children services should then be contacted to follow up with the family.
Cheryl also informed me that she believes that tax payers would be willing to pay for the drug
tests that would be administered, and that stereotyping should not be an issue with this action,
because many jobs require drug testing, and administer random drug testing for employees.
Cheryl also stated her opinion that there should be a limit to how many times a recipient can fail
a drug test, and how many times benefits are reinstated back to them.
The purpose of this interview was to see, and hear firsthand what a taxpayer really
thought about this situation that many people are fighting to make happen. The audience for this
piece is for everyone, taxpayers or welfare recipients. The context of this piece was written in a
time where drugs are running wild on the streets of every city. A time where many are on
welfare also, and where tax payers are getting exhausted of working so they can support
themselves and their families, and others unhealthy lifestyles.
There was no writer in this case since it was an interview. I know the person who let me
interview them is credible because she too is a tax payer, and has worked in the field of children
services, and knows as a citizen how bad drugs are taking over our communities. The source is
reliable because it comes straight from a citizen that pays taxes, gets no help from the
government and sees and hears how people abuse the system.
I plan to use this information in my research paper to give the readers a feeling of
knowing that the person who wrote the paper they are reading has heard it straight from someone
they know personally, and no just somebody that decided to just write a story on a topic that is
hitting headlines at the time being.

David Vitter, Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested For Drugs?, U.S. News Digital Weekly
3.46, 2011, How drug testing can benefit both parties when it comes to drug testing for
welfare benefits. Web.
In this article by Vitter he addresses many issues about drug testing welfare recipients
and how this could benefit not only taxpayers, but also welfare recipients too. At the beginning

of the article information such as, how President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Act in 1996, and by doing this, it cut welfare rolls from 4.6 million families
receiving cash benefits in 1996 to 2.1 million in 2002, which results were by this action many
people getting jobs or participating in job-training programs. After this short piece of information
he follows with that fact that we are overdue to renew welfare reform efforts and make additional
gains. He states that in every renewed welfare reform effort it should include recipients to get
drug tested as a way to keep or receive benefits. The article states that in 2007 that close to 20
percent of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients reported having used an
illicit drug at least once in that past year, he follows with the hardening facts such as at least 5
percent of recipients admitted that they had a problem with substance abuse. Two vital goals
about how random drug testing could help both parties are presented in the article for the readers,
which are 1. Administering these tests would help those with a drug problem overcome their
addiction by helping them realize they have a problem, and offering help or treatment, and with
holding benefits until help is sought. 2. By these random drug tests taxpayer dollars are not being
used to buy drugs or be involved in any illegal activity.
The writers purpose of this article is to inform the pros that come along with these
random drug tests. The audience for this piece is everyone. It will inform the recipients that there
is help out there, if they should fail a drug test, and it reassures the taxpayer that the government
does values their hard work as tax payers. The context of this paper comes from a time where the
government is opening its eyes to a situation that can no longer be ignored.
The writer is a Republican from Louisiana. The author I believe is credible because he is
in politics and witnesses firsthand how much of taxpayer dollars are being thrown down the
drain and is supporting drug habits instead of families, this also gives him adequate information
to write this article, and make the source reliable as well.
I plan to use this information from this article to back up why drug testing for welfare
should be permitted and how many people not just a handful of people would benefit from these
tests being administered.

Elizabeth Stoker Brueings, Red States New Tax on the Poor: Mandatory Drug Tests for
Welfare Recipients, The New Republic, February 9, 2015, how tax payer dollars are used and
what drug testing will do and how it makes people feel about this issue, article
This article spreads light on the issue about drug testing for welfare benefits and how
people of both parties feel about it. In the article it gives details that the state of Tennessee has
found out that not a lot of welfare recipients test positive for drugs, only 37 of 16,107. State
Senator Jane Nelson was quoted in the article by saying Taxpayer dollars should not be used to
support a persons drug habit. We need to ensure this program is putting individuals on a true
path to self-sufficiency, and drugs are a barrier to independence. That statement is followed by
a statement that this action is presuming that a lot of people on welfare have substance abuse
which leads in to stereotyping. This article informs the readers what taxpayer dollars go toward
such as public schools, services for veterans and elderly people which includes social security.

Information as to why tax dollars go toward these certain things is explained and are: people that
have served the country in a particular way and people that are of a certain age shouldnt be
required to be self-sufficient, and parents should not have to worry about the price that it takes to
educate their children. The writer states that drug testing is punishing the poor, and is stereo
typing these people that receive government help.
The writers purpose of this article is to show the readers why drug testing is not a positive
action, and how it has no huge outcomes when taken by the government. The audience intended
for this piece is majority people that are for drug testing, I think this piece is to get people
reading this article to stand against drug testing, but it also can be for people against drug testing
also, it would back up their personal opinion on the matter. The context that this piece what
written is coming from a time where many states are fighting to get this law approved and
running in to a lot of obstacles on the way.
The writer is a staff writer for The New Republic. I believe that writer is credible because
she states facts and quotes in her article about this subject. The writer has adequate information
because the facts stated in her article had to be verified before this article to be sent out to the
public.
I plan to use this article to show the different side to what people thing about drug testing
for welfare benefits. I think readers even though they think this a good idea would also like to
see what the negative thoughts are about this issue to. I dont think that there is a lot of cons in
this article to where it will prevent people from agreeing with me. The negatives in this articles
to not outweigh the positives.

Jake Graven, Some states still pushing drug testing for welfare, USA Today, March 6, 2014,
Drug testing for welfare benefits, print.

In this article it talks about what some states are willing to do to help weed out those
abusing the benefits being supplied by the government and tax payer dollars. It states that some
states are going as far as to administer written tests to help flag drug users and red flagging
people with recent drug convictions. It states the history of drug testing for benefits, which in the
article it informs the readers that drug testing for benefits has been a touchy issue since Congress
overhauled welfare in 1996. It brings to light that different programs have different drug-testing
rules. Its written in the article that states have acknowledge some limits to how many welfare
applicants they could screen and for what reasons also. This article informs readers also how
states are trying to work around the law that prevent drug testing just to put this idea in to action.
The writers purpose of this article is to let the readers be aware of what prevents this
action to take place, and what law makers have to go through to get this to happen, and how hard
it is to get people to agree that this would benefit nearly everyone involved. This piece of
information is for everyone interested in this subject matter. The piece was written in a time of
where many people are on drugs and drugs are becoming an issue in our society.

The writer is someone interested in this subject matter. The other is credible because the
facts stated in this article have got to be proven before sent out to press.
I plan to use this information available in this article to bring awareness to my audience
that its very hard to get something like this passed when many things are involved not just a
drug test and urine. I think this will help people realize how difficult it is to get the state to agree
on an action no matter what it is.

John Wiley& Sons Inc., States consider drug testing for welfare recipients, Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse Weekly, February 23, 2009, how children are effected by drug testing for benefits,
web.
This article warns the readers that when drug testing parents who receive benefits not
only are the parents be punished but children are involved in the matter to. The case where
parents lose benefits because of a failed drug test harms children and their survival, and that is
one reason why drug testing should not be allowed. In this article many people worry as to where
children would be placed if their parents should fail a drug test. Other issues arise in the article
such as to what kind of help is going to be made available to people that fail the drug tests, and
how will the children be protected in this matter. It states that in the state of Arizona about
84,ooo people in 38,500 households including 63,000 children are currently receiving some form
of assistance, this fact is followed up by it would cost Arizona 3.4 million dollars to drug test
these people for one year. It also states that drug testing people on welfare has already been seen
as unconstitutional in one federal court, and it violates the Fourth Amendment.
The writers purpose to show how children can be negatively affected by drug testing, and
why this is not getting passed by the courts. This article is for the general public. The context of
this piece is written in a time where this is an issue that many people think should or should not
take effect. The source is reliable because it states many facts about the issue that must be
verified.
I plan to use this article in my research paper to make people aware that children are
involved just as much as the adults that are on welfare, which I think many people forget that
there are children who will suffer to with this action being fought to take place.

Kim Carter, Should drug testing be mandatory in order to receive government benefits
and would tax payers be willing to pay for these tests, July 3, 2015, should drug tests be
administered for benefits and should tax payers pay for these tests?
In the interview with Kim Carter she agreed that recipients should be drug tested for
benefits. She backs up her claim by saying that if people are able to afford drugs they are able to
take care of their responsibilities. She personal believes that half of the population that is
receiving benefits are on drugs. She doesnt believe that stereotyping would be an issue in this
matter of mandatory drug testing. Kim states that failed drug tests should result in benefits being

taken away for a limited amount of time, and that recipients should pay for their own drug tests
also. She thinks that tax payers would be ok to pay for these tests and drug testing would control
the people that are applying or receiving benefits. Kim informed me that she things people with
recent drug convictions should be drug tested before someone who doesnt have a drug
conviction. She thinks its a good idea to let these people keep the medical card to help pay for
rehab or any other kind of help they may need to get their substance abuse under control. Kim
states that after multiple failed tests benefits should be lost forever.
The purpose of this interview is to state someone that I know and hear their personal
opinion on the matter. The audience is for everyone interested in this matter. The context takes
place where drugs are becoming a big issue in everyday lives all over the country and where
many people are turning to welfare.
The writer is myself since this is an interview. I find myself credible because I interviewed this
person myself which also makes the information adequate and reliable.
I would like to use this information from this interview so the audience reading my paper
is not only reading hard facts about numbers, and people that are high on the political chain. I
think this interview holds something personal about the situation because it is coming from tax
payer and knows how bad the drugs are becoming and how people abuse the system.

Robert Ferguson, Should welfare recipients be drug tested, and should tax payers pay for
these tests, July 3, 2015, Should drug tests be given to receive benefits and how should these
drug tests be paid for?
In the interview Robert Ferguson stated that drug tests should be mandatory for
government assistants, and these tests should be randomly done unless a recipient has a recent
drug conviction on his or her record in that case they should be tested before others who do not.
If a drug test is given and failed Robert says that that person or persons should lose benefits for a
certain amount of time, and if this does happen children services should get involved to protect
the children in the home. Robert states that he believes that the states should pay for the first
drug test after that it is the recipients responsibility to pay for the other ones. He believes that
stereotyping is not an issue with pushing this action in to law. He backs this claim up with
employers drug testing employees for work. His personal opinion goes as far as to say that tax
payers would be willing to pay for the drug tests if they are at a reasonable price. Robert was
undecided when it came to the states helping or even paying for help for the recipients who have
problems with substance abuse.
The purpose of this interview was to get a mans personal opinion on this subject without
all the legal facts and numbers that are made available in this matter. The audience for this piece
is everyone no one is excluded from this piece. The context of this piece comes from where I
believe men and woman may have different views on this matter.
The writer of this interview is myself. I believe that I am credible because I gave the
interview myself. I believe that I have the adequate information to write this interview because I

was able to hear it first hand as it was said to me which also makes this interview reliable as
well.
I plan to use this information to show the readers that men and woman do not view this
topic very differently from each other and in a way give my research paper somewhat of a
personal touch, because it came from someone I know personally.