Drug tests for welfare recipients

Channel Zero · 01-07-2012 10:15PM

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

You need to re-think your position and stop being naive.

Odysseus · 01-07-2012 11:03PM

Sure we used to test twice a week in methadone clinics, due to cut backs it is now twice a month. A significant amount of patients are against this as giving samples twice a week helped the stay clean.

So if we cannot afford it in our clinics, how are we going to pay for it. I haven't read this thread yet, but can only imagine the prejudice against addicts in, of course I hoped I proved wrong but I doubt it.

Odysseus · 01-07-2012 11:38PM

LimerickSports wrote: »

i think its a very good idea, but could be too harsh, if someone just smoked a joint at a party its not like other people on the dole who spend all there money on weed, drink and other drugs they dont deserve social welfare so i think its a brilliant idea if they test how much drugs are in the system etc. but will also need to put these people into some sort of rehab or care rather than cancelling their welfare making them homeless and addicted to drugs

Research how much testing costs, without test for amounts which is very inexact.

Odysseus · 01-07-2012 11:44PM

niallu wrote: »

Well those who pay taxes shouldn't see it wasted in some junkie shooting up!

Most companies have in their contract that they can screen for drugs anyways!

I don't know who could be against this idea. Take a trip around the quays and see how your tax euros are being spent.

They say it costs to keep 12 people in prison per annum 1m, I'd love to see the costs for the junkies with the free accom and free methadone.

Methadone is next to nothing in price, services cost. Just because you pay taxes [just using you as an example] give you no right to dictate how a person spends their SW. How do you know your taxes go towards the SW fund?

Odysseus · 01-07-2012 11:46PM

mattjack wrote: »

So mrMattjack, you gave a dirty urine in your test , have you taken any opiates recently ?

Yes , boss. I had a headache and took some solpedeine.

We can identify the opiate, but it costs a lot

Cee-Jay-Cee · 01-07-2012 11:49PM

I agree with it but i dont see the point in it in this country. I dont honestly think it would save a whole lot and would probably end up costing more to implement/run than what it would save.

Irish Guitarist · 02-07-2012 12:01AM

The social welfare should give out drug vouchers the way they used to give out butter vouchers.

Instead of seized drugs being destroyed they should be given out to drug addicts free of charge.

MagicSean · 02-07-2012 12:18AM

yammycat wrote: »

Public sector wages ?, so i guess you want to privatise all schools hospitals prisons , guards, everything

Not particularly. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of the deficit is from public sector wages, wether you like it or not.

up for anything · 02-07-2012 12:25AM

MagicSean wrote: »

So you think drugs make you do a poor job?

Of course not! They enhance performance. :rolleyes:

southsiderosie · 02-07-2012 12:35AM

Did the people who are in favor of these policies even read the whole article?

Here's a hint: not only did welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general population, but testing didn't save the state any money:

Results of the tests in themselves discredited the law and the justifications of its supporters. During the four months that the law was in place, 4,086 welfare applicants were subjected to the test. By the state’s records, only 2.6 percent—108 applicants—failed the drug test, most often for marijuana. This rate is far lower than estimated rates of drug use in the population as a whole.

The Florida law moreover proved to be a financial loss to the state, since applicants who passed the screening had to be reimbursed for its cost, on average about $35. The total cost of the reimbursements was more than would have been paid out in TANF aid to the applicants who failed the test. Overall, the drug testing cost the state an additional $45,780 on top of welfare outlays.

Nodin · 02-07-2012 12:38AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Did the people who are in favor of these policies even read the whole article? :

....there was a rush to the shops for pitchforks, as things close early on the sunday.

Einhard · 02-07-2012 01:25AM

What business is it of anyone else what people spend their money on? Fair enough, I can understand why people might want to reduce the maount spent on social welfare, but to demand that people spend their money on a prescribed list of goods and services is both obnoxious and intrusive. If someone is on social welfare, and decides that they'll go without something in order to have a night out, that's their perogative. The idea that they should be prevented from doing so smacks of something from the Ireland of the squinting windows era.

Odysseus · 02-07-2012 01:29AM

up for anything wrote: »

Of course not! They enhance performance. :rolleyes:

Think of any highly paid profession and I know addicts in a significant amount of them. If they did not produce the goods they would be out the door, not all addicts spend their day in town tapping up A lot earn 2-3-4 times more than I do

mikom · 02-07-2012 02:04AM

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

I'm sure Edna Kenny will get right on to Ulster bank about this.....

paddy147 · 02-07-2012 02:11AM

Drug tests for all that FG/Labour shower in the dail,as they really talk some amount of shyte in there.

They clearly cannot think straight either.

Monty Burnz · 02-07-2012 02:13AM

yammycat wrote: »

Tax payers are paying off 250 billion of banking debts, prawn cocktail munching ass hats who cost us 250 billion,

Uh...can you show us where you got that figure please?

paddy147 · 02-07-2012 02:20AM

Dont forget 12,000 euro of tax payers money for a week long holiday for "poor" Phil Hogan to Brazil.

tdv123 · 02-07-2012 04:11AM

LimerickSports wrote: »

i think its a very good idea, but could be too harsh, if someone just smoked a joint at a party its not like other people on the dole who spend all there money on weed, drink and other drugs they dont deserve social welfare so i think its a brilliant idea if they test how much drugs are in the system etc. but will also need to put these people into some sort of rehab or care rather than cancelling their welfare making them homeless and addicted to drugs

Yeah, that won't cost the taxpayer any money.

up for anything · 02-07-2012 08:22AM

Odysseus wrote: »

Think of any highly paid profession and I know addicts in a significant amount of them. If they did not produce the goods they would be out the door, not all addicts spend their day in town tapping up A lot earn 2-3-4 times more than I do

I bow to your avowed knowledge about these things. Perhaps I should have added after a fashion. There does come a point in most addict's life where "the higher you are, the lower you fall". It doesn't matter how high they've gotten in their professions or how much money they have made, most eventually get to the stage where they enjoy a bottle of Brut and not the champagne but the aftershave.

The fact that they bring in the clients/cash/business for the companies that they work with can be balanced by the misery of working with/under them. I doubt that there are many highly paid professions where a non-recreational user can continue for too many years.

JustAThought · 02-07-2012 08:36AM

mattjack wrote: »

[QUOTE=

Most companies don't test,its a grey area needing a doctor to test and form an opinion weather or not an employee is fit for work.
Its dependent too on the nature of the job.
I think the doctor isn't allowed give the result of the tests to the employer other than say if the employee is fit.

Em. My last three jobs I had to agree to a full medical for desk based manager roles. I had to agree in advance for the HR department to have full access or I would not progress in the job interview to get the contract . I didn't want to & I argued the point but it was no medical; no job-simple as that . Did the medical got the contract. And no amount of arguing over dr patient confidentiality or otherwise was relevant.

That was just a medical: not drugs screening for illegal drugs.

hytrogen · 02-07-2012 09:04AM

yammycat wrote: »

so yea get mad at the guy drinking his benefits, his benefits are 1% of your tax, 99% of your tax goes to the well do do lovie dovies who don't spend benefits on drink, they just sh1t the country down the toilet while trying to get maaad rich. And laughing too because nobody cares, they are too mad they have to work and johnny spends his 100 quid on booze while they have to work, omg i have to work while he drinks (too fukin thick to realise the huge tax i pay is to subsidize gambling bankers and not to pay for Johnny's booze )

Can you prove that statistic of taxation? Have you inquired with the Revenue Commission for fact or are you just propagating fiction to defend the selfish wasters of society?

if you are concerned about how anyone spends benefits you are short a few pennies and are part of the problem

Practice what you preach so.. It's very easy to point the finger of blame to the opposite end if your socio-economic scale but without hard facts, just those ULA preaching bull**** about conscription and abortion did during their Lisbon treaty campaign & still do, propagating fiction just makes you look like a duchebag..

EI_Flyboy · 02-07-2012 11:39AM

Failing to recognise the part the banks played in our current situation comes across as awefully douchey too. There are many who seem to be of the same opinion as Brenda Powers in that the jobless might be entitled to benefits but they're not entitled to any fun whatsoever. Think of it like this, if you have a nice car, a nice house containing many nice things and a nice life, the dole is the bribe you pay the great unwashed so they don't take them from you. Cut the dole or take away what little enjoyment they have left and you'll find crime goes way up. The London riots didn't come out of thin air, they happened because the have nots got sick of the haves keeping a boot on their neck. Why is it that so many people are so full of hate? It's not good for you.

Odysseus · 02-07-2012 12:00PM

tdv123 wrote: »

Yeah, that won't cost the taxpayer any money.

And you think testing is free?

tdv123 · 02-07-2012 04:48PM

Odysseus wrote: »

And you think testing is free?

No, why would it be?

Odysseus · 02-07-2012 05:39PM

tdv123 wrote: »

No, why would it be?

Treatment services have reduced the amount of testing done by 25% because it is so costly. So if we can't afford to test patients, where is the cash going to come from to test all those on SW

irishpaddy · 03-07-2012 09:21PM

hope your not using them as part of the black economy, that would be cheating on the tax man, and hope all on here have paid their house charge in time, boy but we sure need the money after those bankers slipped up, and got caught out.:mad:

token101 · 03-07-2012 09:41PM

And if they fail the test we cut them off is it? Well the money saved on welfare will just be spent on locking them up when they eventually break into your house and hold your family at needle point to steal your dole that you received when you tested clean :pac:

I'd be more in favour of incentivising treatment programmes somehow. But f*ck knows how you'd do that fairly in the welfare system.

tdv123 · 04-07-2012 01:03AM

Odysseus wrote: »

Treatment services have reduced the amount of testing done by 25% because it is so costly. So if we can't afford to test patients, where is the cash going to come from to test all those on SW

Well thats why I think it's just a terrible idea.

irishpaddy · 04-07-2012 04:51PM

Channel Zero wrote: »

And how would you like to enforce this? Let's see..

I have a suggestion. Let's ankle-tag all unemployed people!

If they attempt to buy a bottle of wine on a Friday night, or God forbid, enter a local pub or restaurant with their loved one on a "night out", the guards can be immediately dispatched to the scene.

I don't like using these much but here we go, just for you:

would not make suggestions that are such good ideas, they may come into law. your suggestion would solve all their worries;;; cheaply.

Odysseus · 04-07-2012 05:14PM

tdv123 wrote: »

Well thats why I think it's just a terrible idea.

Apologies, without rechecking the whole thread, I remember you posting about treatment and it costing too much to the tax payer, but I thought you where in agreement with testing.

It is a terrible idea, but I have noted the way certain labs have put themselves out their, backing all type of ramdom testing as the will make a lot of money out of it.

Drug tests for welfare recipients

Comments