Australia are planning to drug test people on welfare

Oranage2

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

donegaLroad

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

back in 2004, the Scottish welfare authorities were planning on introducing a system whereby people on welfare would receive food and clothes vouchers instead of cash. Im not sure if this was followed up on.

El Weirdo

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Thin edge of the wedge.

Where do you stop? Soylent Green?

Rhyme

I'm more interested in the BasicsCard that's mentioned in the article. That sounds fantastic.

mikhail

Oranage2 wrote: »

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

11 states in the US have tried this. The unvarying result was (a) very few positive tests and (b) a very expensive testing programme.

This is a ****, populist idea that will deliver a load of money to the drug testing company that's probably owned by a mate or a cousin of one of the politicians proposing it.

Rhyme wrote: »

I'm more interested in the BasicsCard that's mentioned in the article. That sounds fantastic.

I believe that one actually is owned by one of the politicians pushing this.

AustinLostin

Oranage2 wrote: »

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

I get the point of it, but if they are testing welfare recipients, should they not test everyone? Surely it is important people follow the law regardless of whether they are employed or not, esp. those providing services to others where they need to have wits about them.

El Weirdo

AustinLostin wrote: »

I get the point of it, but if they are testing welfare recipients, should they not test everyone? Surely it is important people follow the law regardless of whether they are employed or not, esp. those providing services to others where they need to have wits about them.

And just because they test positive, doesn't prove that they bought the drugs.

seamus

It sounds harsh from the thread title but actually isn't that awful when you look into it.

Though I'd object to including cannabis in the list, the goal is not to "punish" drug addicts, but rather aim to try and break the cycle whereby the government gives them money which then goes straight on drugs.

I'm skeptical about its effectiveness. Addicts are wiley barterers, and don't need to be in receipt of cash to trade their welfare for drugs. And other attempts at implementing such restrictions and random testing have had no success.

There are obviously also privacy and autonomy concerns about randomly drug testing people just because they're unemployed.

So while I'd file this one under "good intentions", it sounds like a big waste of money to me.

BrokenArrows

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Good in theory but unlikely to do much.

I cant imagine that the majority of unemployed/on benefits people are taking drugs and you would need the majority to make this worth while.
Are they also going to test the 14-17 year olds who are still under their parents care who are smoking weed?

Gazzmonkey

AustinLostin wrote: »

I get the point of it, but if they are testing welfare recipients, should they not test everyone? Surely it is important people follow the law regardless of whether they are employed or not, esp. those providing services to others where they need to have wits about them.

Its not illegal to have drugs in your system in most situations but it is wrong to have your hand out to the state expecting free money then spending it on drugs.

So only spongers need tested

Ush1

So instead of reducing the welfare spend they're going to increase it by introducing this testing?

Ridiculous, if people wanna take drugs, let them. Legalise and tax it.

Oranage2

El Weirdo wrote: »

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Thin edge of the wedge.

Where do you stop? Soylent Green?

El Weirdo wrote: »

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Thin edge of the wedge.

Where do you stop? Soylent Green?

Of course poor people eating each other isn't what I'd suggest, all though it would solve a lot of problems.

Men and women spending all their welfare money on heroin and other drugs probably won't stop anyway. But your local lad down the pub might think twice about having a few puffs or lines on a Saturday night.

I think it could protect a lot of vulnerable people as both drug use and long term unemployment have negative effects on mental health.

Same think as these high interest loans, I'd love for these to become illegal especially for people on welfare, to help protect them.

bananabread12

I'd be favour of abolishing the welfare system altogether. It's broken in it's current form. Far too many bowzies taking advantage of it knocking around the place in need of a serious income decrease to come to the sudden realisation that to you need to make your own way in this world.

end of the road

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Its not illegal to have drugs in your system in most situations but it is wrong to have your hand out to the state expecting free money then spending it on drugs.

So only spongers need tested

no, non-spongers don't need testing. populist nonsense that will achieve nothing. if you are testing then you test all or nobody.

bananabread12 wrote: »

I'd be favour of abolishing the welfare system altogether. It's broken in it's current form. Far too many bowzies taking advantage of it knocking around the place in need of a serious income decrease to come to the sudden realisation that to you need to make your own way in this world.

i presume on top of that you will bring in laws to force employers to employ such people? because the people we are talking about here aren't employable. no, i don't mean anyone in reseat of wellfare but the types who screw the system.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

i presume on top of that you will bring in laws to force employers to employ such people? because the people we are talking about here aren't employable. no, i don't mean anyone in reseat of wellfare but the types who screw the system.

Why would I be in the habit of forcing businesses to hire incompetent staff? That sounds like a very authoritarian proposal....
Although judging by the braindead proposals of forcing homeowners to rent out their homes that this government have put forward, I genuinely wouldn't be surprised.

Whether they're employable or not is not our problem. They best make themselves employable (just as the rest of us have) if they wish to have all those nice things (like cigarettes and free booze) that they've become oh-so accustomed to receiving from the taxpayers.

diomed

Employers test people to make sure they are not on drugs.
If the unemployed want to be employed then a first step is not to test positive.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Absolutely great idea. My brother used to think that his social welfare payments were best spent on cans of Karpackie, Amber Leaf rollies, and heading out to Connemara in a loud, death-trap of a car to smoke weed with other man-children. 

The marijuana ended up 'doing his head in', so he gave it up. He now has a job, a sensible haircut, and hobbies that involve more than getting high on a Tuesday evening while playing Fifa 17 with other government artists.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

Why would I be in the habit of forcing businesses to hire incompetent staff? That sounds like a very authoritarian proposal....
Although judging by the braindead proposals of forcing homeowners to rent out their homes that this government have put forward, I genuinely wouldn't be surprised.

Whether they're employable or not is not our problem. They best make themselves employable (just as the rest of us have) if they wish to have all those nice things (like cigarettes and free booze) that they've become oh-so accustomed to receiving from the taxpayers.

it is our problem if they are unemployable, as if wellfare isn't availible and they want nice things then crime will rise and we will pay forit. they can't make themselves employable, they can't be made to be employable.
i'm glad you agree that forcing employers to employ incompetent staff is a bad idea, so do i.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

it is our problem if they are unemployable, as if wellfare isn't availible and they want nice things then crime will rise and we will pay forit. they can't make themselves employable, they can't be made to be employable.
i'm glad you agree that forcing employers to employ incompetent staff is a bad idea, so do i.

So what you're saying is that society is being held to random and blackmailed by particular individuals and if said ransom if not paid then there will be trouble to pay in the form of violence and theft of ones property?

What a sorry state of affairs.

I can think of a few solutions to this and all of them involve the physical removal from society of those who disrespect the sanctity of property rights.

end of the road

Pussyhands wrote: »

Great idea!

But, online forums tend to have a young male demographic who are into drugs so expect this to be called a terrible idea.

well i'm not a young man, the only drug i'm interested in is the odd can of drink (which is still a drug as alcohol is a drug)
yet i think this idea, as populist as it will be, has a lot of pitfalls but would solve nothing. we have to be practical and deal with reality, and while populism is nice it rarely brings anything to the table.

bananabread12 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that society is being held to random and blackmailed by particular individuals and if said ransom if not paid then there will be trouble to pay in the form of violence and theft of ones property?

What a sorry state of affairs.

I can think of a few solutions to this.

i agree, it is a sorry state of affairs. however unfortunately, reality in general can be a sorry state of affairs.

El Weirdo

bananabread12 wrote: »

I can think of a few solutions to this and all of them involve the physical removal from society of those who disrespect the sanctity of property rights.

A final solution... if you will.

Coffee Fulled Runner

Great idea I'd go further and anyone on a medical card should come with the conditions that they aren't allowed drink or smoke.

Pkiernan

This should be extended to all public servants too.

RobbingBandit

Can we screen ex tds on massive pensions for drink and drugs too as they get a large amount of tax payers contributions, hope the drug testers come to me they'll see diabetic meds, large quantities of antibiotics and we'll that's about it but then again sick people on disability are the devil.

PARlance

You can't be doing your nixers if your heroined out of it.

Burial.

I'd be all for it. Drug test everyone tbh. And I'm someone who's partial on the occasion. But it'll never work. Like the professional athletes who beat the system without even trying it's incredibly easy to beat a normal drug test.

Oranage2

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Can we screen ex tds on massive pensions for drink and drugs too as they get a large amount of tax payers contributions, hope the drug testers come to me they'll see diabetic meds, large quantities of antibiotics and we'll that's about it but then again sick people on disability are the devil.

Great idea to test ex TDs or any public servant.

And I assume the drug testers don't go to you, you go to an office and get tested.

boombang

I've long felt that if you draw the dole you should be expected to present yourself daily at 10 am to show yourself to be sober. There's no way that being on welfare should be easier than working. It would get people in the working discipline.

end of the road

boombang wrote: »

I've long felt that if you draw the dole you should be expected to present yourself daily at 10 am to show yourself to be sober. There's no way that being on welfare should be easier than working. It would get people in the working discipline.

unfortunately it wouldn't get people in the working discipline. those who want to work are looking and doing what they can and the people we are talking about are unemployable and not wanted by employers.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it wouldn't get people in the working discipline. those who want to work are looking and doing what they can and the people we are talking about are unemployable and not wanted by employers.

Get rid of the minimum wage then and there will be plenty of jobs for these "unemployable" individuals. It's the only solution. At present if you're not worth 350 odd Euro a week then you're sent to the dole queue - the solution is simply, these people do not posses the skills that warrants E350. So get rid of it and employers might find work for them that they'll be willing to give 200, 250, 300 Euro or whatever towards...it's more than they're getting on the dole anyway.

I love Sean nos

Oranage2 wrote: »

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Taxpayers getting welfare are essentially getting back their own money and can spend it any way they want.

boombang

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it wouldn't get people in the working discipline. those who want to work are looking and doing what they can and the people we are talking about are unemployable and not wanted by employers.

Sadly I fear you might be right, but it would be interesting if the government gave it a trial for a year.

ceadaoin.

So they could be spending all their welfare money on alcohol and that's ok? Sounds like a waste of time and money based on the previous results in other countries tbh and just a way to turn welfare recipients into second class citizens

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

Get rid of the minimum wage then and there will be plenty of jobs for these "unemployable" individuals. It's the only solution. At present if you're not worth 350 odd Euro a week then you're sent to the dole queue - the solution is simply, these people do not posses the skills that warrants E350. So get rid of it and employers might find work for them that they'll be willing to give 200, 250, 300 Euro or whatever towards...it's more than they're getting on the dole anyway.

there won't be jobs for them no . if they are unemployable they are unemployable. the minimum wage has to stay so that people can live and pay their basic costs. the minimum wage is vital to the economy and to cut down on exploitation. there is no work for the unemployable. it's nothing to do with wage or being worth a certain amount. your solution is not viable.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

there won't be jobs for them no . if they are unemployable they are unemployable. the minimum wage has to stay so that people can live and pay their basic costs. the minimum wage is vital to the economy and to cut down on exploitation. there is no work for the unemployable. it's nothing to do with wage or being worth a certain amount. your solution is not viable.

Of course there will be jobs for them - it's simple supply and demand. This can be shown to you mathematically. How is the minimum wage vital to the economy? It doesn't even impact anyone earning over 9.55 an hour and only allows certain low-skilled labourers to corner the market. It makes poor people poorer.

Are you suggesting the first world countries that do not have minimum wages are falling apart? Heaven forbid.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

Of course there will be jobs for them - it's simple supply and demand. This can be shown to you mathematically. How is the minimum wage vital to the economy? It doesn't even impact anyone earning over 9.55 an hour and only allows certain low-skilled labourers to corner the market. It makes poor people poorer.

Are you suggesting the first world countries that do not have minimum wages are falling apart? Heaven forbid.

it's not simple supply and demand as there are enough workers for the work that needs doing. there is no work for the unemployable as they are unemployable, the removal of the minimum wage won't change that. the minimum wage is vital as it insures that in theory at least, people can pay their basic costs.

listermint

Grand plan if your all happy with increasing break ins and robberies and whatever else people on drugs to do get their fix.

Smart idea I suppose.



Cause and effect.

But sure people only see single lines of thought don't they.

steddyeddy

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Tax payers also fund drug tests. Let's hope this ends up saving money unlike the tests in America.

Stupid idea thought up by people who get a boner at the thought of shaming people on welfare. It's nothing to do with saving money.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

It sounds harsh from the thread title but actually isn't that awful when you look into it.

Though I'd object to including cannabis in the list, the goal is not to "punish" drug addicts, but rather aim to try and break the cycle whereby the government gives them money which then goes straight on drugs.

I'm skeptical about its effectiveness. Addicts are wiley barterers, and don't need to be in receipt of cash to trade their welfare for drugs. And other attempts at implementing such restrictions and random testing have had no success.

There are obviously also privacy and autonomy concerns about randomly drug testing people just because they're unemployed.

So while I'd file this one under "good intentions", it sounds like a big waste of money to me.

It's incredibly awful and actually quite stupid. It's in a similar bracket say this is good intentions as well.

It has cost the taxpayer more every time.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

it's not simple supply and demand as there are enough workers for the work that needs doing. there is no work for the unemployable as they are unemployable, the removal of the minimum wage won't change that. the minimum wage is vital as it insures that in theory at least, people can pay their basic costs.

There is no specific set amount of jobs in the universe - jobs are created and destroyed on the basis of how much it costs an employer to hire someone. If employers demand labour at 7 or 8 Euro and hour, then how can this demand be met with supply when the government is saying it'll cost nearly 10? In this case, the State itself is directly impacting and intervening in the labour market and thus it is artificially restricting supply.

There is work for these "unemployable" individuals - a lot of work. You can hire anyone to do anything. Hell, I could go out and hire one of these guys to mow my lawn but why would I when the State is telling me that it'll cost me nearly 10 Euro an hour?! I might as well just do it my self because I value that 10 Euro an hour moreso than I do my time of cutting the grass...

Far from the minimum wage law being the saviour of humanity that you're misleading people with, it's actually one of the biggest contributing factors in keeping these unskilled people out of work.

BillyBobBS

If this happened in Ireland we'd need at least 10,000 new Gardai for the jump in crime. Its a stupid idea.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

There is no specific set amount of jobs in the universe - jobs are created and destroyed on the basis of how much it costs an employer to hire someone. If employers demand labour at 7 or 8 Euro and hour, then how can this demand be met with supply when the government is saying it'll cost nearly 10? In this case, the State itself is directly impacting and intervening in the labour market and thus it is artificially restricting supply.

There is work for these "unemployable" individuals - a lot of work. You can hire anyone to do anything. Hell, I could go out and hire one of these guys to mow my lawn but why would I when the State is telling me that it'll cost me nearly 10 Euro an hour?! I might as well just do it my self because I value that 10 Euro an hour moreso than I do my time of cutting the grass...

Far from the minimum wage law being the saviour of humanity that you're misleading people with, it's actually one of the biggest contributing factors in keeping these unskilled people out of work.

there are no jobs to create for the people we are talking about.
employers don't want to pay anything, understandibly, so we have to have a minimum wage to insure a wage is paid. there is no supply for the demand to meet here as there will be enough work for those who want it once the recovery fully happens. the labour market is not being restricted, exploitation is bering restricted which is just, fair and correct, for the greater good. there is no work for the unemployable they are unemployable. it's nothing to with skills but general attitudes which cannot be changed. the minimum wage law is necessary and must remain to keep exploitation down and insure a fair days wage for a fair days work.

steddyeddy

BillyBobBS wrote: »

If this happened in Ireland we'd need at least 10,000 new Gardai for the jump in crime. Its a stupid idea.

People must have really unhappy lives to worry about social welfare 24/7.

Pkiernan

steddyeddy wrote: »

People must have really unhappy lives to worry about social welfare 24/7.

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

pickarooney

From a pragmatic point of view what's the most likely outcome?

- money wasted on a scheme that yields no useful results, most likely money going to politicians' friends and families

- dole suspended for some

- increased crime as addicts turn to stealing

- more money spent on legal proceedings and prison

What are the upsides? How is this not just another in the interminable list of schemes by the privileged classes to take from the middle classes while scapegoating the lower classes?

How does this address the root causes of addiction and despair?

Sam Kade

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

Down the pub one night a man like you started giving out about his tax money funding social welfare, one of the patrons came up to him and patted him on the back while saying the harder you work the more I get paid.

Yet another dole bashing thread :rolleyes:

end of the road

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

junkie dirtbags are only a tiny proportion of those on wellfare. so tiny they may as welll be non-existant. i am not overjoyed about them receiving wellfare either but i recognize the reality that it it's better they do then don't.
they can't be put on a desert island and left there as it would be against their human rights. we would be paying high taxes anyway even with a low wellfare bill.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

there are no jobs to create for the people we are talking about.
employers don't want to pay anything, understandibly, so we have to have a minimum wage to insure a wage is paid. there is no supply for the demand to meet here as there will be enough work for those who want it once the recovery fully happens. the labour market is not being restricted, exploitation is bering restricted which is just, fair and correct, for the greater good. there is no work for the unemployable they are unemployable. it's nothing to with skills but general attitudes which cannot be changed. the minimum wage law is necessary and must remain to keep exploitation down and insure a fair days wage for a fair days work.

I've no idea as to what this "recovery" is that you're expecting? Our GDP is greater today than it was in 2007, our GNI today dwarfs what is was back in 2007, our gross domestic product per capita is well above what it was in 2007. There is nothing to recover. We're far and away above whatever we lost post-recession so I'm not sure what it is you're expecting to recover from....

In any event, you cannot argue with mathematics. The minimum wage kills jobs. This is not my opinion here, this is a mathematical fact. Do you wish me to post academic studies in relation to such areas?

Tsipras

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Absolutely great idea. My brother used to think that his social welfare payments were best spent on cans of Karpackie, Amber Leaf rollies, and heading out to Connemara in a loud, death-trap of a car to smoke weed with other man-children. 

The marijuana ended up 'doing his head in', so he gave it up. He now has a job, a sensible haircut, and hobbies that involve more than getting high on a Tuesday evening while playing Fifa 17 with other government artists.

Your brother sounds much better craic than you

steddyeddy

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

If people really think that their 54% tax goes towards drug addicts then they don't deserve a decent wage. Absolute stupidity.

Irish Guitarist

How about handing out free drugs but lacing them with some kind of poison? Get rid of poor people that way.