In each society, levels of control necessitate survival. People must always follow the stipulated rules and guidelines in order to maintain social order. Even though some present good ideas, others undermine the dignity of the majority and benefit the minority. This discussion based its findings to the procedure put in place regarding aid given to the monetary challenged persons. They are jobless; need help with schooling or need food stamps. As such, stringent measures involving drug tests accompany their plea for access of resources. The taxes hike in a bid to make effective this purpose and some people feel that the security does not improve either. This paper suggests an alternative policy that incorporates democracy in its endeavor and recommends a strategy to implement the action plan. The strategy gives power to the people rather than the House of Commons.
Background and considerations for change
Information is a vital tool that requires control in a bid to reduce its adverse effects. This statement has appeared in many tabloids over the years. To make effective this function, people take a lot of caution while communicating. This makes the fourth estate a respected part of the society and an ultimately feared entity that can create or break an individual. Such information makes people think twice about the media and its ability to run the society. Contrarily, this paper does not discuss the media but rather talks of the way the society used this tool to address the drug testing welfare. In the USA, the legislatures often use the media to make known the bills they wish to pass. In one such occasion, the council passed a law in Florida to test persons who were entitled to receive government aid. This meant that for an individual to get Medicaid, welfare assistance and food stamps, they had to undergo a series of doping examinations. This move aimed at regulating the level of drug use in the better part of the USA since the cases of drug abuse in the USA rose to higher scales (Tunnell, 2004). After Florida embraced this move, several other states joined it. Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and many others took the bold step of incorporating the government regulation act. The most significant part of the entire process is that the persons who need aid end up paying for such services and they often feel intimidated. People ask many questions with regard to such procedures since they largely target the susceptible individuals in civilization. The paper gives a detailed account of the situation whilst seeking remedies form the very society that complains with regard to these changes. While others support the government's endeavor, others seek for a repeal of the law.
When the legislatures propose the passing of a bill, they often ensure they succeed in doing so for the reason that they also possess personal interest that they seek to safeguard. The current policy dictates multiple principles that undermine human dignity while protecting the government from exploitation. The policy is a utilitarian move that refutes democracy and uses the government's power to get revenue from the very people that need help. This is quite sarcastic. Why should the state deny a drug addict food when they represent the section of the society that voted the majority council members into power? Additionally, the state must question the rationale behind the society getting involved in such acts. The problem might trace roots to the governing structure. A major part of the Americas thinks this is a bad strategy while others think it is justifiable. Offering welfare services, jobs, college edification aid among others demand an exchange with a credible physician report with regard to drug use. The levels of desperation in individuals make them seek alternative means of survival and thus they engage in illicit activities. Many people complain of the increase in taxing in order to support the entire procedure. Some issues in this policy contradict human survival while other sections justify the need for its implementation. In a snippet preview of this policy, the council members proposed a procedure to test individuals receiving government aid. The test included the examination of drug samples in their bodies. Most states passed the bill while others refuted such measures for fear of their impact on the populace. This is because the test procedures leave the target populace intimidated and with a low self-esteem (Dasgupta, 2010). Indiana and two other states embraced this move. In a bid to defend their cause of action, the state explained that the move geared towards regulation of foodstuff stamps, interests, and occupation preparation joblessness, civic accommodation will save a lot during coinage circulation. Though this is a positive move by the government, the populaces feel denial of freedom. Freedom is an important aspect of the society that the society should not deprive off persons. Excessive regulation on humanity means demand for more taxes from the very persons. Sometimes the state should just provide aid without inputting stringent measures to accompany such endeavors. This paper, therefore, recommends many changes that will incorporate democracy and will give persons the power to make rational decisions instead of tying them to rules and regulations from the societal minorities.
Need for change
In making decisions that will interfere with the social order, the members of the council must seek the consent of the populace (Secord & Secord, 2003). This is the practice of democracy and popular participation in decision-making processes. Decisions geared at benefiting the public must gain most influence from the same public. The legislatures only need to lobby on behalf of them. Under this policy, however, the councils make major decisions that affect people economically, socially, politically, and technologically. Proper leadership necessitates change. At this point in history, the USA undergoes the worst times in terms of recession and increase in commodity prices. To this effect, it needs the most tranquil and stable political environment in order to maintain its super power status. This means that most of them have to depend on government aid in a bid to survive. Alternatively, the state puts in place such measures to regulate the resource-sharing endeavor. The sanction bestowed on this document need repeal in order to accommodate the rule of the majority. There is absolutely no need to help people or give temporary assistance while attracting a greater share of their taxes. In order to solve this, the populace must campaign for better policies that do not discriminate against the less fortunate. Americans must garner the courage to face the representatives with lobbying proposals for them to act in favor of the people who need aid. This policy is a political problem that needs a social solution. Communication through the right channels will aid in addressing such information.
Alternative policy versus the current procedure
Alternative procedures dictate that the government should subject every USA citizen to this test. The rationale behind this is to lessen criticism and to reduce the divide between the higher class and the low class. The fact that only those in need of aid undergo such tests means that intimidation increases. The alternative techniques should also avoid the attraction of the extra taxes. The only problem with the current system is that it subjects the marginalized groups to discrimination and gets revenue in return. By including everyone, the government will succeed in creating equality and equity in resource distribution. It is constitutionally unfair to subject applicants of state aid to doing searches that might result in medical problems and psychological disturbance. The screening affects the body tissues largely. Considering it is a mandatory procedure, democratic decisions are definitely out of question. The proposed system, however, seeks justice, communication and uses proactive measures to achieve results. In such a case, the entire America will undergo a drug test weekly and everyone will have the freedom to feel like America is home. Though the state will spend a lot of money to achieve this purpose, it will justify their requirement to increase taxation.
Pros and cons of each policy
No governance system displays perfection parse. While the current system suggests thorough screening, the second one refutes screening off only a sub sect of the society. It either everyone undergoes the same process or no one does. Security concerns (Siegel, 2012) come in when the second policy takes effect. Additionally, screening the entire populace becomes an expensive venture for the state. The current system kind of uses autocratic means to achieve its mandate while the proposed procedure takes the keen interest in pragmatic leadership styles. Though the two entities contrast, it is evident that the proposed policy gives people the power and justice they deserve while the second one mainly recognizes the state. Though the current policy is cost effective and secure, it does not provide room for persons to develop technologically, for instance, students might fear undergoing the test and let go of college aid. The education might have benefitted the society technologically in the end. The fear of intimidation draws them back. Generally, the suggested policy allows self-regulation, freedom, democracy and incorporates proactive measures by making the government look for other avenues of getting drug abusers.