Should those who recieve social welfare be tested for Drugs on a regular basis?

voz es

This is a lovely little debate for a Wedensday monrning....;)

So do the majority feel that it is acceptable that those who recieve welfare be drunk or under the infulence of illegal substances on a regular basis?

I see some of people who i went to school with who i know are unemployed on a regular basis standing at the local's door with a cigarette in hand when i'm coming home from work. Did anybody else ever hear the line i'm working for the state now from a person with a pint in hand ( in other words on the dole)

I was prevously on the dole for 3 months after i finished college and can understand the social elements and how fu*king hard on the mind it is for many to be unemployed, its not good for the mind not seeing a person from one end of the day to the next, but to be fair now getting out of it during the week is not exactily activly looking to get your self back into employment.

There is plenty of volenteering where new skills can be gained and that 'the shed' programme is great.

So what's wrong with a urine test, if a person has illegal drugs in there system cut the benifit that week, they obvisouly had too much last week same with high quantities of alcohol on a regular basis. Feck it sure many people have to do it to keep there jobs!

Krusader

No

Abi

This will end well..

Yeah, let's waste tons of money in admin costs implementing something pointless.

Cavehill Red

Given the amount of times cocaine has been found in Leinster House, let's drug test Dail Eireann first.

SafeSurfer

Why discriminate against social welfare recipients? Why not test everyone in receipt of state payments, TDs, ministers, civil servants, teachers, soldiers, those in receipt of pensions and children's allowance. Heck, lets test the bondholders, hedge fund managers too, we could save a packet if some of these masters of the universe are coke heads.

starbelgrade

voz es wrote: »

I was prevously on the dole for 3 months after i finished college

If you apply drink & drug testing to the unemployed, then you should extend the same principal across the board to anyone who is in receipt of State supplements or funding, including students.

voz es

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why discriminate against social welfare recipients? Why not test everyone in receipt of state payments, TDs, ministers, civil servants, teachers, soldiers, those in receipt of pensions and children's allowance. Heck, lets test the bondholders, hedge fund managers too, we could save a packet if some of these masters of the universe are coke heads.

Cracking idea, imagine the blow this would have to drug culture also, people want money and happyness, drugs make the happy and relaxed for a period and then well money keeps a roof over there head

Personally i have nothing against a little bit of a smoke every so often, but if its being constantly smoked by somebody there are often noticable effects. eevvveerrryyy ttthhhiiinnngg iiissss ddddooonnnneee aaa llliiittttttllleee bbbiiittt mmmooorrreee rrreeelllaaxxxeedd

Duggy747

What better way to feel great about being on the dole than to be regularly tested and treated like the dog you are.

super_furry

How much money government money is that going to waste? Absolutely hare-brained idea and one that is totally unworkable.

starbelgrade

It never ceases to amaze me how right-wing and conservative many young people are these days.

It must be awful to waste your youth being so obvious and dull.

Chuck Stone

Yay!

Let's have an incredibly costly and complex bureaucratic state surveillance apparatus to micro manage the lives of the unemployed so instead of an unemployed person costing €200 a week they cost €2000 a week.

Irish Guitarist

Everyone should be given a urine test. You haven't lived until you've urinated into a tiny bottle.

I once took a urine test and when the doctor went to examine it he spilled it all over the carpet. It was hilarious.

Another time when I started a new job I had to take a urine test and post the sample myself. I had to walk around with the urine sample in my pocket until I got home. That was less fun.

RobbieTheRobber

Whil we are doing this testing we could also test for levels of Codeine and catch all the pain killer junkies.

This is gonna be deadly!

kneemos

Maybe we should put them in concentration camps op and let them out when they get a job.

Andy!!

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, let's waste tons of money in admin costs implementing something pointless.

Pointless? If you catch em, kick em off the dole because the money is being spent on drugs. How is that pointless?

RobbieTheRobber

kneemos wrote: »

Maybe we should put them in concentration camps op and let them out when they get a job.

Eh couldnt we just call them work camps, thus giving them jobs solving the unemployment problem and then they dont have to be allowed back onto the streets.

Cavehill Red

starbelgrade wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how right-wing and conservative many young people are these days.

It must be awful to waste your youth being so obvious and dull.

Plus, where is there left to go politically when you become boring and middle-aged if your politics are already tedious and reactionary? The OP and his ilk are going to hit the politics wall one day. They'll wake up in their mid to late 30s and realise that no existing political party is sufficiently fascist enough for their sensibilities.

gallag

No, smoking a bit o weed ain't no thing. I do think anyone receiving the dole should have to go to a training facility 9-5 Mon-Fri where they can try different things like joinery, mechanics, sparking, nursing or improve their cv with redoing maths, English or learn s new language.

Get people out of bed
Create jobs for teachers, admin etc
Give people confidence and a place to learn new skills and meet new people instead of sitting in depression all day.

golden lane

unemployed people should have the right to spend their dole money as they see fit..as long as they are job seeking....

non..employed people that recieve state benifit...should not be able to afford to do so.....

NinjaK

Another 'im pissed off here in work, ill take it out on those who are happy out in their warm beds' threads..

Esoteric_

Oh look, another social welfare thread. Lovely.

Wetbench4

Andy!! wrote: »

Pointless? If you catch em, kick em off the dole because the money is being spent on drugs. How is that pointless?

Then they turn to crime to get the money, end up in jail and cost us thousands a week.

golden lane

Wetbench4 wrote: »

Then they turn to crime to get the money, end up in jail and cost us thousands a week.

so, you pay them to be good ????

Handsome Bob

voz es wrote: »

This is a lovely little debate for a Wedensday monrning....;)

So do the majority feel that it is acceptable that those who recieve welfare be drunk or under the infulence of illegal substances on a regular basis?

I see some of people who i went to school with who i know are unemployed on a regular basis standing at the local's door with a cigarette in hand when i'm coming home from work. Did anybody else ever hear the line i'm working for the state now from a person with a pint in hand ( in other words on the dole)

I was prevously on the dole for 3 months after i finished college and can understand the social elements and how fu*king hard on the mind it is for many to be unemployed, its not good for the mind not seeing a person from one end of the day to the next, but to be fair now getting out of it during the week is not exactily activly looking to get your self back into employment.

There is plenty of volenteering where new skills can be gained and that 'the shed' programme is great.

So what's wrong with a urine test, if a person has illegal drugs in there system cut the benifit that week, they obvisouly had too much last week same with high quantities of alcohol on a regular basis. Feck it sure many people have to do it to keep there jobs!

Ha

Wetbench4

golden lane wrote: »

so, you pay them to be good ????

No we pay them to survive, but dole is cheaper than jail to the taxpayer

Janey_Mac

Andy!! wrote: »

Pointless? If you catch em, kick em off the dole because the money is being spent on drugs. How is that pointless?

What a brilliant idea. Let them steal or starve, that'll make them less likely to be a burden on society. And to hell with their families, sure kids don't need to eat.

The idea of giving only to the "deserving poor" should be left in the Victorian era where it belongs.

golden lane

Wetbench4 wrote: »

No we pay them to survive, but dole is cheaper than jail to the taxpayer

so, you pay them to be good.......

Cavehill Red

golden lane wrote: »

so, you pay them to be good ????

It's one form of crime prevention, a better one than Judge Dredd cops on every street corner and a police state.
I've an even better form of crime prevention to suggest, though. Plus it would save you the anguish over your hard-earned taxes being wasted, blah, blah, feckin blah.
Legalise and tax all drugs now.
There you go. Now they're legal and taxed, the state makes money on them as they do on the smokes and gargle. Now we don't need to lock up hundreds of people whose only crime relates to cannabis. Now we don't need an armed police unit to target armed criminal drug gangs, because they've gone out of business.
Now we have tons more money in our justice budget available to spend on more useful things to our society. No, I know you don't want to give it to the poorest and most vulnerable, so let's not do that. Let's give it to billionaires to repay their losing bets on some banks instead. Let's show some charity.

Iomega Man

No, no no..

So what next?..Test for fat consumption.
I'd say that a bigger killer

lukesmom

Nope. There are no rules on how you spend the dole and nor should there be.

TwoShedsJackson

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Eh couldnt we just call them work camps, thus giving them jobs solving the unemployment problem and then they dont have to be allowed back onto the streets.

Plus there'd be jobs to be had building the camp, then they could be herded in afterwards. Even some permanent jobs as guards etc.

OP, you do realise that the vast majority of dole payments go back into the economy right? It doesn't get paid out to the worthless poor and then just magically disappear with no benefit to anyone?

arybvtcw0eolkf

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why discriminate against social welfare recipients? Why not test everyone in receipt of state payments, TDs, ministers, civil servants, teachers, soldiers, those in receipt of pensions and children's allowance. Heck, lets test the bondholders, hedge fund managers too, we could save a packet if some of these masters of the universe are coke heads.

We're regularly tested, its even extended to members of the Reserve Defence Forces.

I'm not sure about other people in the public/civil service.

And yup, I've no probably with people in receipt of social welfare payments being tested and punished if tested positive.

Abi

SW don't give enough to be in a pub a couple of times a week. After food and bills theres piss all left. What your seeing is people that either have side line work or people still living off their parents. I can't see how you could live independently and afford that kind of life style.

It's a massive generalisation to assume all SW recipients piss their payment away in the boozer, and bloody cheeky to go looking for urine and blood tests from people that would much rather be out working, as if it's not humiliating enough for them to have to claim in the first place.

Logical_Bear

Andy!! wrote: »

Pointless? because the money is being spent on drugs

no it isnt,my habit pays for itself thank you very much.My dole pays for my slab of dutch gold but thats for a different thread

Emeraldy Pebbles

Yes, let's stigmatise the unemployed! Hurray!!!!

voz es

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Plus, where is there left to go politically when you become boring and middle-aged if your politics are already tedious and reactionary? The OP and his ilk are going to hit the politics wall one day. They'll wake up in their mid to late 30s and realise that no existing political party is sufficiently fascist enough for their sensibilities.

If a person reads a paragraph in a book they have not read the book and have not any idea whether the book is a good one or a bad one, same as my original post, who are you to tell me what my political ideals are from reading one post from me. very arogant of you.

One of communisms biggest weaknesses was the greedy and the lazy, they were the ones that made it so hard for it to work. communism is a beautiful idea but terribally flawed because there was never an account taken for the human elements. I have been to Cuba, a beautiful place with some very good ideas, all the same the feeling you get from talking to people is that they feel opressed, they dream of the greener partures not because they have ever tasted them or tha they are beter, but because it is out of there reach

There is an old saying was if the carrot is put before the horse he moves fast to get it without the carrot the horse slows down. if you apply that to a man say my age and he has to go in a line wait there and be treated like a sub human by some arogant twat behind a glass counter ( an experience i have had) what hope has he, what motivation has he to achieve the next level, are you telling me getting out of it a few times a week is going to get him back to employment, are you telling me there is not an alcohol and drug abuse issue in out culture today? Or from a cultural point of view is it fair on the rest of tax paying society if he dose not want to become self sufficient and back to employment?

Where is your aprication for our eldery, talks of penson cuts they have worked hard in this country paying tax, and now we have some of those who are of working age getting paid varying amounts of money and spending it on drink and or drugs?

golden lane

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Yes, let's stigmatise the unemployed! Hurray!!!!

using drugs....is self stigmatisation.....

yes, it really is their own fault....

WindSock

Well I guess I gotta go and get a job now so I can be coked up to my eyeballs at my desk.

Emeraldy Pebbles

golden lane wrote: »

using drugs....is self stigmatisation.....

yes, it really is their own fault....

Do you use caffeine, alcohol, nicotine? If you use any of these, you are also a user. :cool:

WindSock wrote: »

Well I guess I gotta go and get a job now so I can be coked up to my eyeballs at my desk.

:pac:

Cavehill Red

voz es wrote: »

If a person reads a paragraph in a book they have not read the book and have not any idea whether the book is a good one or a bad one, same as my original post, who are you to tell me what my political ideals are from reading one post from me. very arogant of you.

You have called for people to be drug-tested before receiving benefits entitlements and cut off otherwise. Sorry to break it to you, you're a little fascist.

voz es wrote: »

One of communisms biggest weaknesses was the greedy and the lazy, they were the ones that made it so hard for it to work. communism is a beautiful idea but terribally flawed because there was never an account taken for the human elements. I have been to Cuba, a beautiful place with some very good ideas, all the same the feeling you get from talking to people is that they feel opressed, they dream of the greener partures not because they have ever tasted them or tha they are beter, but because it is out of there reach

No idea what you're trying to say there. Spelling and punctuation is all over the place. If I were your employer, I'd be looking to replace you with someone better educated. Then you could get to be drug tested weekly under your own proposal. Wouldn't that be great?

voz es wrote: »

There is an old saying was if the carrot is put before the horse he moves fast to get it without the carrot the horse slows down. if you apply that to a man say my age and he has to go in a line wait there and be treated like a sub human by some arogant twat behind a glass counter ( an experience i have had) what hope has he, what motivation has he to achieve the next level, are you telling me getting out of it a few times a week is going to get him back to employment, are you telling me there is not an alcohol and drug abuse issue in out culture today? Or from a cultural point of view is it fair on the rest of tax paying society if he dose not want to become self sufficient and back to employment?

I didn't question that there was an alcohol and drug abuse culture. I already proposed how to address that - legalise everything.

voz es wrote: »

Where is your aprication for out eldery, talks of penson cuts they have worked hard in this country paying tax, and now we have some of those who are of working age getting paid varying amounts of money and spending it on drink and or drugs?

What is an "aprication for out eldery"? Are you high right now?

Chuck Stone

Wouldn't it be cheaper to fit people with a bio-medical real-time tracking/monitoring device that could administer a shock when they did something that deviates from what those in power deemed virtuous?

Emeraldy Pebbles

Oh and OP?

After C an E apply, after other letters, I.

:pac:

golden lane

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Do you use caffeine, alcohol, nicotine? If you use any of these, you are also a user. :cool:



:pac:

i can use whatever i want.......i pay for it....

now....what exactly is your point..?????

Remmy

WindSock wrote: »

Well I guess I gotta go and get a job now so I can be coked up to my eyeballs at my desk.

or cockpit

voz es

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You have called for people to be drug-tested before receiving benefits entitlements and cut off otherwise. Sorry to break it to you, you're a little fascist.



No idea what you're trying to say there. Spelling and punctuation is all over the place. If I were your employer, I'd be looking to replace you with someone better educated. Then you could get to be drug tested weekly under your own proposal. Wouldn't that be great?



I didn't question that there was an alcohol and drug abuse culture. I already proposed how to address that - legalise everything.



What is an "aprication for out eldery"? Are you high right now?

Firstly you need to get your own spelling in check before you go commeting on other's look at your post that i replyed to. What if i was dyslexic, so now by your own admission you would look for somebody who had better grammer because I suffered from a mild learning difficulty. very discriminate of you.

I'm sorry if you can not understand my reply......

If you took the time to read my op properly you might have had the foresight ont to say weekly before you posted about weekly testing. I never wrote such a line. i believe it should be done after a pronlonged period of unemployment and then randomly with follow ups if the test was failed. but you didnt ask that just persuamed.

Must go to work now

Cavehill Red

voz es wrote: »

Firstly you need to get your own spelling in check before you go commeting on other's look at your post that i replyed to.

My spelling's fine, sunshine.

voz es wrote: »

What if i was dyslexic, so now by your own admission you would look for somebody who had better grammer because I suffered from a mild learning difficulty. very discriminate of you.

Hey, best person for the job. Are you opposed to meritocracy?

voz es wrote: »

I'm sorry if you can not understand my reply......

If you took the time to read my op properly you might have had the foresight ont to say weekly before you posted about weekly testing. I never wrote such a line. i believe it should be done after a pronlonged period of unemployment and then randomly with follow ups if the test was failed. but you didnt ask that just persuamed.

I 'persuamed', did I?

voz es wrote: »

Must go to work now

The more you post, the less I believe anyone would employ you.

kraggy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's one form of crime prevention, a better one than Judge Dredd cops on every street corner and a police state.
I've an even better form of crime prevention to suggest, though. Plus it would save you the anguish over your hard-earned taxes being wasted, blah, blah, feckin blah.
Legalise and tax all drugs now.
There you go. Now they're legal and taxed, the state makes money on them as they do on the smokes and gargle. Now we don't need to lock up hundreds of people whose only crime relates to cannabis. Now we don't need an armed police unit to target armed criminal drug gangs, because they've gone out of business.
Now we have tons more money in our justice budget available to spend on more useful things to our society. No, I know you don't want to give it to the poorest and most vulnerable, so let's not do that. Let's give it to billionaires to repay their losing bets on some banks instead. Let's show some charity.

Decriminalisation wont put the gangs out of business. Who's gonna make the MDMA and coke?

The government aren't going to make it and they're not going to put a contract for making drugs out to tender.

Thus, gangs will continue to make them and continue to make money.

-> drugs won't be decriminalized. (apart from cannabis in which case people may be allowed to grow their own, but even that's a long way off).

mikom

voz es wrote: »

This is a lovely little debate for a Wedensday monrning....;)

So do the majority feel that it is acceptable that those who recieve welfare be drunk or under the infulence of illegal substances on a regular basis?

I see some of people who i went to school with who i know are unemployed on a regular basis standing at the local's door with a cigarette in hand when i'm coming home from work. Did anybody else ever hear the line i'm working for the state now from a person with a pint in hand ( in other words on the dole)

I was prevously on the dole for 3 months after i finished college and can understand the social elements and how fu*king hard on the mind it is for many to be unemployed, its not good for the mind not seeing a person from one end of the day to the next, but to be fair now getting out of it during the week is not exactily activly looking to get your self back into employment.

There is plenty of volenteering where new skills can be gained and that 'the shed' programme is great.

So what's wrong with a urine test, if a person has illegal drugs in there system cut the benifit that week, they obvisouly had too much last week same with high quantities of alcohol on a regular basis. Feck it sure many people have to do it to keep there jobs!

voz es wrote: »

Cracking idea, imagine the blow this would have to drug culture also, people want money and happyness, drugs make the happy and relaxed for a period and then well money keeps a roof over there head

Personally i have nothing against a little bit of a smoke every so often, but if its being constantly smoked by somebody there are often noticable effects. eevvveerrryyy ttthhhiiinnngg iiissss ddddooonnnneee aaa llliiittttttllleee bbbiiittt mmmooorrreee rrreeelllaaxxxeedd

Yeah, Cracking idea.........
You could give everyone that passes the drug test a big gold star to wear that shows who they are.
Something like this........... http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-BE064674.jpg?size=67&uid=007d4b71-8b8d-4ad2-9a2c-e16a28e3369d

Cavehill Red

kraggy wrote: »

Decriminalisation wont put the gangs out of business. Who's gonna make the MDMA and coke?

I didn't propose decriminalisation. I proposed legalisation and taxation. As for manufacture, private enterprise will cover that, when they see a profit can be made. This country is already the pharmaceutical capital of Europe. We're perfectly positioned to become the E supplier to the globe.

kraggy wrote: »

-> drugs won't be decriminalized. (apart from cannabis in which case people may be allowed to grow their own, but even that's a long way off).

Cannabis is already effectively decriminalised in most of Western Europe. It is also legal to grow your own plants in many of those countries. I think your long way off is a lot closer than you may be aware of.

mikom

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Cannabis is already effectively decriminalised in most of Western Europe. It is also legal to grow your own plants in many of those countries. I think your long way off is a lot closer than you may be aware of.

They are all coming around.............

Growing cannabis in your own home should not be a criminal offence, says university professor.

'Six plants per person is acceptable'

University professor Alex Stevens said people should not be punished for what they will do anyway
By Sara Malm

30 October 2012

A professor at a top British university has called for a decriminalisation of growing cannabis, saying six plants per person is an ‘acceptable amount’.

Alex Stevens, an expert on criminal justice at the University of Kent, said possession of the drug and cultivating cannabis plants for personal use, should not be a criminal offence.

He said he did not want to harm people for ‘things they are going to do anyway’.

‘We should be moving towards progressive decriminalisation. We should be seeking to reform our drug laws to make them less harmful,’ Professor Stevens said in an interview with student paper The Medwire.

‘One way of doing that would be to start by decriminalising the personal possession of cannabis and also the production of small amounts of cannabis in people’s own homes.’

According to professor Stevens, decriminalisation would not lead to an increase in usage, citing research from Portugal and Spain.

‘It seems to make no real difference to the levels of use of cannabis.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225438/Growing-cannabis-home-criminal-offence.html