
This subject really interests me because of my compassion for children. In a lot of cases, people are eligible for welfare because they do not have the means to care for their children. Some people take advantage of the system and use the money they receive for their own selfish reasons, such as addictions to drugs or alcohol. Although this does not affect me directly since my family does not receive welfare money, it has affected some of the children in my mom's kindergarten class. One of her students in particular lived in government housing with her mom, grandma, and siblings. They received welfare money, yet this student was never healthy. She was never at school, and when she was she would fall asleep because she said "my mom took me to a club with her last night, so I didn't get to sleep".  My mom had to go get her from her house a few times before school, as well as a couple other administrators at the school. While at the house they saw a lot of alcohol bottles just laying around. Situations like this are what really upset me, because a five year old child has no control over what is happening to them. Although I am not an expert on this subject, my research will give me both ethos and logos and will make me a credible author.

Michelle Price wrote an article claiming that drug testing for welfare is helping some people face their problems, but it does not benefit those who refuse to take the test. Two hundred and fifty people in Utah refused to take the test, so they lost their benefits. This saved the government about $30,000. However, she argued that the point of drug testing is to help people realize they have a problem and get them the help that they need. If two hundred and fifty people just refused to take the test, then we are putting too much value on the money we are saving, and not focusing on what really matters. Although the government is saving money, the families that dropped out of welfare will lose their money, and not get any help with drug or alcohol problems, if they have them.. This article is credible because the author is a part of the associated press. The author, Michelle Price, uses evidence from credible sources such as the Department of Workforce Services. She does a great job at using statistics and evidence to support her personal opinions about the issue. However, there is bias throughout the article, which could affect the credibility. 

This article reflects on Tennessee's first year with a law enforcing drug-testing for welfare. Although only 65 people out of 39,121 tested positive for drugs during Tennessee's first year with the law in place, a lot of money was actually saved. 116 people refused to take the test, and 82 people dropped out in the middle of the testing. So even though the testing costed a total of $23,592, the state saved $230,000. Unfortunately, the people that did not go through testing did not get any help. Even though Tennessee saved money, they still have about 200 needy families that could possibly be suffering from a drug addiction. This could bring up a question of value to the drug testing system, and what the government is really doing to help. The author of this article is credible because she comes from a news station that is part of USA Today News. This article is also very relevant because it was published yesterday, which means it is up to date, and it gives us valuable information on what is happening in Tennessee right now. It is mostly informative, so there is not much bias throughout the article.

An article written by many doctors based on their research and case findings, shows many positive effects of drug testing for welfare. Women who receive welfare are more likely to have mental health problems and substance abuse problems. Because of this it is hard for them to get jobs. After the treatment that they receive, a high percentage of them are able to get jobs and in some cases they do not need welfare money anymore. However, some women who have psychiatric disorders or alcohol addictions do not qualify for the drug screenings, and therefore they cannot get any treatment. This is a problem that the system has, and it makes it seem as if they value helping drug abusers over the majority of them that have many other problems. The authors of each of the case studies are credible because they all have a PhD. They are all researchers from schools of medicine or substance abuse institutes. They use their personal findings and statistics, rather than their opinions to explain their studies.

This research question is arguable because many people think that drug testing for welfare is unconstitutional and that we do not find enough users to keep the system going. However, when you look at the numbers, many people are getting help and the government is saving money. All three of my articles agree that some people are left on their own that may actually need help. However, the last article that discussed the other issues, such as alcohol abuse and psychiatric disorders, made me realize that there are so many other problems at hand that are simply being ignored. After reading each article I feel that in order to really make this system work, their needs to be random visits to welfare recipients throughout the year, and they need to be evaluated for drug abuse, psychiatric disorders, child abuse, and alcohol abuse. In order to get all of my ideas into a research paper I might want to consider all of the other tests that need to be done in order for someone to get the help they need to continue to be eligible for welfare.

