Should Random Drug Testing Be A Condition Of Social Welfare?

RichieC · 03-05-2011 11:38AM

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 · 03-05-2011 11:38AM

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 · 03-05-2011 11:39AM

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 · 03-05-2011 11:40AM

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 · 03-05-2011 11:41AM

jumbone wrote: »

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

Missed that earlier!

Logical Fallacy · 03-05-2011 11:42AM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:00PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:03PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:11PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:11PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:14PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:15PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

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

Ah...

longshanks · 03-05-2011 12:23PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:45PM

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 · 03-05-2011 12:51PM

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

Iwannahurl · 03-05-2011 01:17PM

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 · 03-05-2011 01:31PM

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 · 03-05-2011 02:08PM

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 · 03-05-2011 02:13PM

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 · 03-05-2011 02:25PM

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.

a5y · 03-05-2011 02:31PM

No.

I appreciate the OP wants to come up with ideas to make society better, but this would just backfire.

Not to mention the lawsuits that happen for false positives from outraged jobseekers - who didn't want to be on the dole in the first place - and now have to routinely pee in a cup while being watched, and listen to the village gossip going around the parish that they're doing smack - making it AGAIN HARDER to get OFF the dole.

This is a whole complicated mess of no.

mconigol · 03-05-2011 02:36PM

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?

joseph brand wrote: »

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.

I get drug tested occasionally at work. Private sector. I would loose my job if I tested positive. Why should dole recipients not have to be tested for illegal drugs? They are getting money from the state so why should the state fund illegal activities which also cost more in policing etc....?

RichieC wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

Quite a backlash to this idea here. I'm genuinely shocked!

ScumLord · 03-05-2011 02:37PM

a5y wrote: »

No.

I appreciate the OP wants to make society better, but this would just backfire. Not to mention the lawsuits that happen for false positives from outraged jobseekers -

Which could happen. I'm not sure if it's just an urban legend but wasn't there talk of people showing positive for opiates after eating burger buns that had poppy seeds on them?

I've taken medication recently that stated I could test positive for cannabis after taking, even though I did the course I keep a pack around as a cover storey for any future tests I might have to take. Many over the counter medications can result in a positive result for cocaine.

ScumLord · 03-05-2011 02:48PM

mconigol wrote: »

I get drug tested occasionally at work. Private sector. I would loose my job if I tested positive.

Why don't they test you for alcohol too? I don't really understand moral drug testing in companies, if it's just about how the drugs would affect the employees work then they should include alcohol as it takes longer than many illegal drugs to leave the system and has one of the worst come downs of any drug.

DrumSteve · 03-05-2011 02:49PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

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!

Maybe read my last paragraph again in relation to your first paragraph.

Klair88 · 03-05-2011 03:02PM

Orwell would **** in his grave, if he knew 1988 would eventually happen in 2011!! Alot of people would get cut for smoking some green then.(me included) and thats a bullsh!t law anyway. What about all the auld lad's on the dole for years sitting in a pub everyday drinking the dole they're given? I've seen many of them, and its the same thing! still a drug! It wouldnt happen anyway

steddyeddy · 03-05-2011 03:03PM

They would have to test workers if they start testing social welfare recipients.

ScumLord · 03-05-2011 03:07PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

They would have to test workers if they start testing social welfare recipients.

Why? A private company can hire whoever they think is suitable for the job. If the government started butting in stopping companies hiring the best person for the job just because they did some drugs on their time off some sectors could be left with a ineffective work force.

The hard drugs like cocaine are gone out of your system within a day or two, so as long as people took their drugs 2 days before any test and drank some extra water on the day of the test they wouldn't test positive. The tests are deeply flawed.

mconigol · 03-05-2011 03:08PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Why don't they test you for alcohol too? I don't really understand moral drug testing in companies, if it's just about how the drugs would affect the employees work then they should include alcohol as it takes longer than many illegal drugs to leave the system and has one of the worst come downs of any drug.

They do.

steddyeddy · 03-05-2011 03:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Why? A private company can hire whoever they think is suitable for the job. If the government started butting in stopping companies hiring the best person for the job just because they did some drugs on their time off some sectors could be left with a ineffective work force.

The hard drugs like cocaine are gone out of your system within a day or two, so as long as people took their drugs 2 days before any test and drank some extra water on the day of the test they wouldn't test positive. The tests are deeply flawed.

Well im not in favour in testing any group but if it was brought in I would want it brought in in as fair a capacity as possible.

Should Random Drug Testing Be A Condition Of Social Welfare?

Comments