Should Random Drug Testing Be A Condition Of Social Welfare?

DrumSteve

The above crossed my mind on my way to work this morning while walking beside the Boardwalk in Dublin City Centre. Anyone who has walked past or on this at any stage will know about the groups of Junkies that hang around on there drinking and banging up all day, usually with thier poor kids in tow.

The money to do this comes from a number of sources, Selling drugs, prostitution and in most cases Dole/SW...? I believe personally that being drug free should be a condition of receiving the full social welfare allowence from the state.(As an addendum to this I also think that birth control should be mandatory if you are on the Phy scheme.)

As anyone can see from my posting history I have no problem with people on the Dole. Many are good people on there through no fault of their own. However, with the state fairly low on cash should we be paying to subsidise someone's drug habit? I don't think so, even with the inherent problems this might bring (i.e rise in crime rates/burglaries).

Guill

Test for what?

Caffeine?
Alcohol?
Nicotine?
Paracetemol?
Codine?

Or just drugs you don’t like?

Logical Fallacy

Nope. The main issue i would see with it is that you are assuming a possibility of criminality simply because people are on the dole.

dvpower

DrumSteve wrote: »

The money to do this comes from a number of sources, Selling drugs, prostitution and in most cases Dole/SW...? I believe personally that being drug free should be a condition of receiving the full social welfare allowence from the state.(As an addendum to this I also think that birth control should be mandatory if you are on the Phy scheme.)

Having to declare income is already a condition of social welfare so that should cover the money aspect.

After that, if someone wants to take drugs, thats (in the main) their own business. If it impacts on their requirement to be 'available for work' then that condition is already covered.

dvpower

DrumSteve wrote: »

(As an addendum to this I also think that birth control should be mandatory if you are on the Phy scheme.)

What's the Phy scheme?
(And would the birth control be free?)

DrumSteve

Guill wrote: »

Test for what?

Caffeine?
Alcohol?
Nicotine?
Paracetemol?
Codine?

Or just drugs you don’t like?

Mainly non perscription illegal narcotics perhaps?

Also I don't asume people are criminals because they are on the dole. I have been quite vociferous of my defence of people on the dole.

AnonoBoy

But what if they were at a party and it's second hand smoke and not their fault like Ross Rebagliati?

Would they get their gold medal dole back then?

jester77

Crazy idea, what would happen if you inadvertently took something on the banned list? Do you have to tell your dr. that you are on the dole so that he can give you only certain types of drugs. Would never work and only increase crime as the junkies need their fix.

DrumSteve

dvpower wrote: »

What's the Phy scheme?
(And would the birth control be free?)

Sorry I should have said Methadone. Just used to calling it Phy.:) Birth control would be free in this instance.

bobmalooka

DrumSteve wrote: »

The above crossed my mind on my way to work this morning while walking beside the Boardwalk in Dublin City Centre. Anyone who has walked past or on this at any stage will know about the groups of Junkies that hang around on there drinking and banging up all day, usually with thier poor kids in tow.

The money to do this comes from a number of sources, Selling drugs, prostitution and in most cases Dole/SW...? I believe personally that being drug free should be a condition of receiving the full social welfare allowence from the state.(As an addendum to this I also think that birth control should be mandatory if you are on the Phy scheme.)

As anyone can see from my posting history I have no problem with people on the Dole. Many are good people on there through no fault of their own. However, with the state fairly low on cash should we be paying to subsidise someone's drug habit? I don't think so, even with the inherent problems this might bring (i.e rise in crime rates/burglaries).

while were at it we should make them wear black and white stripped jumpers or orange jumpsuits so we can identify them easily

bonerm

No. Soma for all. Keep the masses under control.

Nijmegen

Don't play silly, it's a simple list of illegal drugs, including cocaine, heroin, E, etc.

Why should we give the dole to people who spend it to fund criminal activities?

joseph brand

What a a stupid question. I can understand drug tests for traffic controllers and positions that require employees to be in control of their faculties.

But does a person really need to be sober to be able to collect the dole and sit at home and watch telly??

Best idea I have heard so far is to make people on the dole (that'll be me pretty soon), attend a gym maybe 2 or 3 times a week. It's good both mentally and physically. We need to help people on welfare instead of trying to target them and give them more hassle. Positive thinking.

This is negative thinking. Something I would expect from the US.

dvpower

DrumSteve wrote: »

Sorry I should have said Methadone. Just used to calling it Phy.:) Birth control would be free in this instance.

What's the logic of forcing people on a methadone programme to use birth control?

And what would be the sanction if they became pregnant? Would we cut their dole of a mother to be?

I do recall a US charity that was active here (maybe it was the UK) a couple of years ago who were incentivising women on drug treatment programmes to use birth control. They were paying for the pill and giving them cash rewards for not becoming pregnant.

bonerm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But what if they were at a party and it's second hand smoke and not their fault like Ross Rebagliati?

Would they get their gold medal dole back then?

Wow, they give gold medals for that sport?!

dvpower

joseph brand wrote: »

But does a person really need to be sober to be able to collect the dole and sit at home and watch telly??

It is a condition of recieving the dole that recipients are actively seeking work. If youre intoxicated watching telly all day, youre not entitled to payment.

AnonoBoy

bonerm wrote: »

Wow, they give gold medals for that sport?!

Who with the what now?

Dole is for keeping you alive and fit to find work.. I know I spent a large chunk of my dole on pills when I was on it for two months. A bit of a joke and I wouldn't have thought it unreasonable at the time to be tested.

Ireland's taxpayers were paying for me to get high as a kite which obviously isn't right.

tayto lover

I don't agree with drug-testing dole claimants at all.
The only requirement for dole or social welfare are that you are unemployed, unable to get a job and not in the black economy.

fedor.2.

DrumSteve wrote: »

Sorry I should have said Methadone. Just used to calling it Phy.:) Birth control would be free in this instance.

Prison officer are ya?

Iwannahurl

Let's suppose for a minute that it's a good idea.

Why stop -- or start -- with social welfare recipients?

In our current socio-economic situation, maybe it would be better to start with TDs, senators, judges, public servants, An Garda Siochana, managers and employees of state agencies and semi-state companies, etc?

IIRC, a few years some newspaper secretly swabbed the toilets of Dail Eireann and found traces of illicit drugs. Everyone employed in that establishment is in receipt of state payments. Apart from their payments being much higher than social welfare rates, they are also in positions of responsibility and we wouldn't want them making important decisions about the affairs of state while under the influence of psychoactive substances.

Speaking of which, why limit the random testing to illicit drugs? What about random breath testing for all the above to check for alcohol ingestion during work hours? Dail Eireann has its own bar, subsidised by the taxpayer I believe. What other workplace has a drug supply like that on tap?

Nijmegen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Let's suppose for a minute that it's a good idea.

Why stop -- or start -- with social welfare recipients?

In our current socio-economic situation, maybe it would be better to start with TDs, senators, judges, public servants, An Garda Siochana, managers and employees of state agencies and semi-state companies, etc?

IIRC, a few years some newspaper secretly swabbed the toilets of Dail Eireann and found traces of illicit drugs. Everyone employed in that establishment is in receipt of state payments. Apart from their payments being much higher than social welfare rates, they are also in positions of responsibility and we wouldn't want them making important decisions about the affairs of state while under the influence of psychoactive substances.

Speaking of which, why limit the random testing to illicit drugs? What about random breath testing for all the above to check for alcohol ingestion during work hours? Dail Eireann has its own bar, subsidised by the taxpayer I believe. What other workplace has a drug supply like that on tap?

Drinking on the job isn't illegal, nor is the drink.

But I'd agree with drug testing TD's etc. ANyone under the public employ. Gardai are subject to random drug tests, AFAIK, as are soldiers.

Anyone paid by the state should submit to random drug tests.

Indeed, as an employer I can submit any of my employees to them also, if I felt the need.

Logical Fallacy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Let's suppose for a minute that it's a good idea.

Why stop -- or start -- with social welfare recipients?

In our current socio-economic situation, maybe it would be better to start with TDs, senators, judges, public servants, An Garda Siochana, managers and employees of state agencies and semi-state companies, etc?

IIRC, a few years some newspaper secretly swabbed the toilets of Dail Eireann and found traces of illicit drugs. Everyone employed in that establishment is in receipt of state payments. Apart from their payments being much higher than social welfare rates, they are also in positions of responsibility and we wouldn't want them making important decisions about the affairs of state while under the influence of psychoactive substances.

Speaking of which, why limit the random testing to illicit drugs? What about random breath testing for all the above to check for alcohol ingestion during work hours? Dail Eireann has its own bar, subsidised by the taxpayer I believe. What other workplace has a drug supply like that on tap?

Just test the whole population on a random basis. If you fail and are employed you lose your job and go to jail, freeing up job spots for people on the dole who are not using drugs.

RichieC

Nijmegen wrote: »

Indeed, as an employer I can submit any of my employees to them also, if I felt the need.

Was it in their contracts that you can?

Nijmegen

RichieC wrote: »

Was it in their contracts that you can?

It is. If we feel the need to test any of them we can. For practical purposes, a guy driving a forklift under the influence of drink or drugs is a danger to himself and his coworkers, and if we suspect anything is amiss we can search his stuff and have him tested.

And why not?

MagicSean

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't agree with drug-testing dole claimants at all.
The only requirement for dole or social welfare are that you are unemployed, unable to get a job and not in the black economy.

And are actively seeking work

RichieC

Nijmegen wrote: »

It is. If we feel the need to test any of them we can. For practical purposes, a guy driving a forklift under the influence of drink or drugs is a danger to himself and his coworkers, and if we suspect anything is amiss we can search his stuff and have him tested.

And why not?

article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy".

Nijmegen

RichieC wrote: »

article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy".

I'll trump yours with Article 1 of common sense, unless you value your privacy more than being skewered by a drugged up warehouse forklift driver.

jumbone

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What other workplace has a drug supply like that on tap?

A pub? Or if you mean state-subsidised alcohol, then an army barracks.

Iwannahurl

"Due to Oireachtas subsidies, alcohol sold at the Dáil bar is among the cheapest in Dublin. A 2007 Leinster House audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) found that a pint of Guinness cost just €3.70 – 35% cheaper than the average cost in the capital at the time." Irish Examiner, May 2010.

Last year Ciaran Cuffe of the Green Party got into a bit of trouble for tweeting this photo of people enjoying the taxpayer-subsidised legal drug dispensary in his erstwhile workplace.

MagicSean

I don't think the point of drug testing would be to catch people who like to get high. It would be more for the people who are spending their dole where they should not be. Dole payments are supposed to provide you with enough to live on. If you are spending it on drugs then you are getting too much.

RichieC

k_mac wrote: »

I don't think the point of drug testing would be to catch people who like to get high. It would be more for the people who are spending their dole where they should not be. Dole payments are supposed to provide you with enough to live on. If you are spending it on drugs then you are getting too much.

Or not eating...

Iwannahurl

Re posts #23 and #29, I forgot to include the Prison Service and Army in my list of key state organisations that might benefit from routine drug and alcohol testing, if such a regime were implemented.

RichieC

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'll trump yours with Article 1 of common sense, unless you value your privacy more than being skewered by a drugged up warehouse forklift driver.

I think the word Arbitrarily covers that.

NomdePlume

Hang on, will this drug testing take place before or after they're sent to pick up litter off the streets?

We want them to do menial tasks in public for their money. No WAIT we'd prefer them to squat and give us a urine sample for their money. No WAIT *foams at mouth in sadistic ecstasy*.

Iwannahurl

jumbone wrote: »

A pub? Or if you mean state-subsidised alcohol, then an army barracks.

Missed that earlier!

Logical Fallacy

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'll trump yours with Article 1 of common sense, unless you value your privacy more than being skewered by a drugged up warehouse forklift driver.

In fairness, statistically it is more likely to happen because of a drunk one.

Augmerson

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Just test the whole population on a random basis. If you fail and are employed you lose your job and go to jail, freeing up job spots for people on the dole who are not using drugs.

You'll spend more money incarcerating people in prisons than just giving them the dole. Were we to jail people tomorrow for failing drug tests, the prison population would explode. The people who would be thrown off the dole and have no other financial means of getting drugs would turn to crime. I am talking of course of serious hard drug users - people smoking hash don't go out and rob cars or homes to feed their habit. People on heroin will. The crime rate would go through the roof and organised crime would be in a stronger position than ever.

iguy

I myself believe that the money is given to 'the receiver' and they can do whatever they please with it.
I've got a friend who uses recreational drugs and he knows his limit.
He still can pay his bills,do a weekly shop for him and his partner,put clothes on his and her back.
He doesn't smoke and he only drinks on special occasions and at that it will only be a pint or 2.
However I believe if you take recreational drugs and cant handle the effects you should not use.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Are we going to test them for alcohol as well?

And will we start testing everyone receiving taxpayers money, such as people receiving child benefit, students receiving grants, and all public sector workers?

Logical Fallacy

Augmerson wrote: »

You'll spend more money incarcerating people in prisons than just giving them the dole. Were we to jail people tomorrow for failing drug tests, the prison population would explode. The people who would be thrown off the dole and have no other financial means of getting drugs would turn to crime. I am talking of course of serious hard drug users - people smoking hash don't go out and rob cars or homes to feed their habit. People on heroin will. The crime rate would go through the roof and organised crime would be in a stronger position than ever.

Yeah...that's pretty much what i was getting at with the ludicrous action i had proposed.

biko

Guill wrote: »

Test for what?

Caffeine?
Alcohol?
Nicotine?
Paracetemol?
Codine?

Or just drugs you don’t like?

Illegal drugs I would think. What's the point to test for legal drugs?

Augmerson

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Yeah...that's pretty much what i was getting at with the ludicrous action i had proposed.

Ah...

longshanks

Probably off topic, but if you can afford a brand new transit or hiace without ever having worked a day in your life, should you then be allowed to claim social welfare?

MagicSean

There have been suggestions put forward, most recently by the G.R.A., that court fines should be subtracted from social welfare payments. The main argument against this is that the dole is supposed to be calculated to provide a minimum standard of living so an deduction for fine payment with mean that a person couldn't maintain a basic standard of living.

As for those of you who say that social welfare is given to the person and they should be able to spend it on what they want. That's bulll****. Like I said, dole is given to maintain a basic standard of living. This does not include alcohol and drugs. You don't have a right to a night out once a week. If I don't have any cash at the end of the week because I had to pay my bills I don't go out. It's as simple as that. My employer won't give me the cash for a night out. Similarly, lone parents and child allowance should be spent exclusively on the child. That's what it's provided for. If you don't earn your own money why should everyone who does earn be expected to fund your recreation?

ScumLord

What we should do is ban cities especially ones like Dublin as these things only really happen in Dublin.

Iwannahurl

biko wrote: »

Illegal drugs I would think. What's the point to test for legal drugs?

Because the central nervous system doesn't discriminate between legal and illegal psychoactive substances. If those people in receipt of state payments -- eg TDs, judges, civil servants, Garda officers etc -- are taking mood-altering/enhancing substances their judgment might be impaired and therefore they won't be fit for work. Fitness for work is a fundamental prerequisite for such payments, I understand. Or I hope.

dvpower

k_mac wrote: »

As for those of you who say that social welfare is given to the person and they should be able to spend it on what they want. That's bulll****. Like I said, dole is given to maintain a basic standard of living. This does not include alcohol and drugs. You don't have a right to a night out once a week. If I don't have any cash at the end of the week because I had to pay my bills I don't go out. It's as simple as that. My employer won't give me the cash for a night out.

So if someone can live frugally (e.g. grow their own veg, make their own clothes etc) should they refund the unused portion of their social welfare back to the exchequer?
Shouldn't there be some incentive for good money management?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

ScumLord wrote: »

What we should do is ban cities especially ones like Dublin as these things only really happen in Dublin.

No, I reckon we should all foreigners home, because these offences are only committed by foreigners.

HellFireClub

DrumSteve wrote: »

The above crossed my mind on my way to work this morning while walking beside the Boardwalk in Dublin City Centre. Anyone who has walked past or on this at any stage will know about the groups of Junkies that hang around on there drinking and banging up all day, usually with thier poor kids in tow.

The money to do this comes from a number of sources, Selling drugs, prostitution and in most cases Dole/SW...? I believe personally that being drug free should be a condition of receiving the full social welfare allowence from the state.(As an addendum to this I also think that birth control should be mandatory if you are on the Phy scheme.)

As anyone can see from my posting history I have no problem with people on the Dole. Many are good people on there through no fault of their own. However, with the state fairly low on cash should we be paying to subsidise someone's drug habit? I don't think so, even with the inherent problems this might bring (i.e rise in crime rates/burglaries).

And what about the vast majority of people who are on SW but do not take drugs??? Is it right to further tarnish or put to question, the characters of those people, many who have worked hard for years, by forcing them to take a drugs test?

Witholding SW payments from junkies doesn't achieve anything, other than making them probably steal more. I hear you on the state of the City Centre and the sheer number of junkies that are now hanging around the streets, but if you cut off their SW payments, they'll still be there in the morning and next week!

whatdoicare

I'm on the dole and would have no problem with random testing- I also agree that those in Gov should also be tested on a much more regular basis, the idea that people who are responsible for running the country could be high is unsettling.