1

Drug Testing and Welfare

Steffany A. Rodriguez
Genre Analyses

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1302
Professor Cohen

In recent years, over a million dollars have been spent in drug testing applicants for
government assistance in order to discover who the users are and who are actually in need of aid.
These actions are grounds for political debates of whether these drug tests are actually helping
discover the truth, or if they are just a waste of time and money. In this essay I will analyze two
sources from different genres which deal with this topic. The first source I will be analyzing is a
web article from the Center for American Progress Action fund, and the second source is a video
from The Young Turks, an online news show.
The audience that was intended for my first article Center for American Progress Action
Fund was the American people (tax payers). The money used by the seven states that were
Missouri, Mississippi, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas and Tennessee is all money used by
that of the tax payers. A bill by Texas, West Virginia, Montana and several others has been passed
so its very highly that these states will soon board the train with the initial seven. It is said that
Lawmakers who push these bills claim that they will cut down on costs by rooting out drug
abusers while also helping to refer those users to treatment but in reality it has a little amount of
benefits or possibly not at all. Further reading in the article we see that for the most part people
are ashamed and dont want to ask for help to begin with. Now, by making them take a urine test
it makes the whole application process that much harder. So, rather than them seeking assistance
they will turn from it.
When furthering analyzing the article and see the data provided by each of the seven
states some starting as early as 2011 and going to 2014 we see that the number of applicants
testing positive is not high at all. In Missouri from the 38,970 of applicants 446 of the applicants
were tested and only 48 were found to test positive and the cost for this was 336,297 dollars. The
one with the highest positive tested applicants was Oklahoma they had 9,552 and 2,992 were

screened and 297 tested positive. Again the state wasted 385,872 dollars that were coming out
from TAF and Medicaid budgets. Florida even tried making everyone who was applying for
assistance take the urine drug test. Anyone that passed the exam would be reimbursed by the
state and this concept didnt stay for that long because it was going against the fourth amendment
and stopped by the Federal Court. As a Nation we do know that some individuals are known for
exploiting the system and that is why some states are trying to find and end or a way to give the
aid to who really needs it. But, what the audience is being exposed to by this article is that this
isnt the solution the only thing is one its harming people from feeling demeanor by being told
they need to drug test because from the seven states mentioned above the people who were send
to test were people that were assumed to be using drugs. The only that would enforce them all
to test was Florida but that was dismissed really fast. The language on the article is that of semiformal its easy to read its not overwhelming and its straightforward.
For the second source to be analyzed its a video speaking on why drug testing isnt a
good idea. On the video it first starts off with a clip from a CNN news and the host asked her
audience to express the thoughts they had toward drug testing. Of, course some said it was a
wonderful idea because it discourages people who are using drugs to stop using drugs or that it
prevents the government from spending money on people shouldnt be receiving aid. But the
another issued brought by other viewers were that the children were going to suffer from this
because now the family would really need to struggle and the one to pay the price was the kids of
those people. A woman that has been employed by the social security offices for over than 10
years was against drug testing. She stated that the only thing it did was destroyed families.
The audience intended for the video is for young adults. Its more commend for young
adults to look up videos were the host are arguing about a topic and that way to further take their

own opinion on a situation. The video duration was approximately 5 minutes and in that small
gap of time the host of the video did a very good evaluating the sources. By sources I mean that
the video used the same data provided that show that the states were wasting more money then
what they were saving. The language on video is informal; some of the languages I see are logos
and pathos. Meaning using the developed argument and then turning it to the other things that are
going on also things the government agency should be taken care of or adding restrictions too.
When looking at both types of documentaries we see that they are both delivering the same tone.
Even though both of the arguments are made to target a different group of audience they both
relate to the statistical analyses and correlate with one another. On the video they brought in to
the picture everyday individuals that have had to see the impact of welfare applicants being
tested. This is a very good way to deliver a message because its not just experts delivering the
topic but now its a more personal approach. For the first piece that was an article it did a good
job at convening the information because it had graphs to represent the information not just what
experts in the topic had to say. Over all using both analyses to represent the topic that drug
testing in welfare shouldnt be done would make for a good argumentative response.

Bibliography:

"Center for American Progress Action Fund." Center for American

Progress Action Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 14,2015
Interview. Https://youtu.be/xPZQQP47vl8. N.p., n.d. Web.