Welfare support and drug testing

**skippa1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:27

Originally Posted by mashman

What are the rules?

If the govt says it's ok for me to give my tax to a stoner, then sure, why not, tis what happens at the moment and I'm more than happy with it,.

so when the government say that they should be tested first, you should be ok with that then. Good.

**skippa1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:28

Originally Posted by bogan

Not everyone has the skills, or lack of family commitments to make that option possible.

of course they dont, not when they can stay home stoned

**placidfemme** · 2nd July 2012, 20:30

Ahhh... A great topic to stir up the trolls and narrow-minded amongst us. Like the good old days

I've read all 9 pages so far and boy don't the ignorant like to flaunt themselves unashamedly, so I might as well join the party and wave the flag of my opinion

I have meet a huge range of people covering every possible aspect of society, but the one type I have not meet is the unemployed stoner on the benefit, given the stereo-type of the stoner, I have surprised myself by seriously thinking about it and not being able to name even one. I find it highly unfair that so many of you have had the apparent dis-pleasure of knowing MANY of these and I lack that experience. I have meet the criminal, the breeder, the alcoholic and the such. But every stoner I have meet has been employed and a functioning member of society. In my eyes pot is no worse than alcohol. Just like some people can have a beer and not smash the misses, some people can have a joint and not be whatever you deem to be a common stoner trait. Crimes related to alcohol are higher than crimes related to pot... go figure.

However, in saying that, if I can be legally tested for drugs as part of my contract, then how is it remotely unfair to test people on the benefit? For what it is worth I would love to see public reports of drug tests from those twats in government. If I am required to be drug free to get my pay packet why should this be different for someone on the dole? I really don't understand the reasoning of why anyone is against this. The "real" people in need, who are trying to find work, who are making the effort... Well, I highly doubt any of them would say no to a drug test, I reckon you will find the only people on the dole who would be offended at the request are the ones who know they take drugs and know they risk losing the dole because of this. I didn't go waving a "poor fucking me" flag when I saw the drug test clause in my contract, I didn't go shouting about my "rights", because frankly, if someone is giving me their money, I'll abide by the rules set out to ensure I can pay my bills and be a functioning member of society... but then on the same hand I'm not retarded enough to show up at work stoned/drunk, so as to give my employer reason to want to test me.

But lets face it, the real problem, we are not talking about pot or alcohol or any other drug (legal or not), what we are looking at is the "type" (insert racial, social or whatever ideology you have of anyone you deem to be lower standing than you), we are simply talking about the low life "I don't want a fucking job, society OWES me this" type person. And these are the only people who will object to a reasonable request to prove you will not be using the funds kindly given to you out of the pockets of every other average working Joe Blob, to buy such items that the Joe Blob him/herself cannot afford.

Yes, it costs money to test them, but everything costs money. We pay if we test them, we pay if we don't. So rather pay to test them, find the druggies (I'm not limited to pot, I'd love to see them test for P too), find the addicts, offer them assistance to rehab and start a healthy life, once they are earning money through a legitimate job, who gives a fuck what drugs they buy, because chances are they will have a drug testing clause in their contract too...

I don't know enough about the idea of legalizing it, in a general aspect, but as far as for medical purposes go I support this 100%.

**mashman** · 2nd July 2012, 20:31

Originally Posted by skippa1

Why the fuck shouldnt they be expected to be straight and ready for work?

Yet

Originally Posted by skippa1

I know surgeons and high level buisnessmen that smoke after hours and I dont have an issue with that

Who says they (potential employees with positive test) wouldn't be straight and ready for work?

**bogan** · 2nd July 2012, 20:32

Originally Posted by skippa1

of course they dont, not when they can stay home stoned

And how do you propose we ensure that they get skills that will give them a job at the end of it? Make dole life more miserable?

**blue rider** · 2nd July 2012, 20:32

Originally Posted by skippa1

thats one side of the coin, the other is the business side. I have tried to find drug free staff to carry out work on a permanant basis and I simply cant get a person that is unemployed and on a benefit to pass a drug test. I cant put people that are a risk in our business as they would pose a risk to the public. WINZ simply cannot send a person my way that can pass that test. I dont want trained or skilled labour, I would settle for straight. I would like nothing better than long term reliable staff.
Why the fuck shouldnt they be expected to be straight and ready for work?

what are you looking for? and why is a stoner more dangerous than a closet alcoholic.?
what are the drugs you want people tested for?

i am asking because I am curious,
Of the NZ'lers on welfare - how many are abusing the system. really how many? 5 % 10% 50%. Can i have a cost benefit analysis, or is it un-polite to ask?

**ducatilover** · 2nd July 2012, 20:33

Originally Posted by skippa1

They had an earthquke in Christchurch and need between 25-30,000 extra workers. They pay more than the minimum wage which is more than the dole.

I'd go down, if I didn't poo every time I thought of earthquakes. Certainly a huge earning potential down there and one would hope, if funding is available, unemployed people could be employed down there with on-the-job training or something of the sort.

**mashman** · 2nd July 2012, 20:34

Originally Posted by skippa1

so when the government say that they should be tested first, you should be ok with that then. Good.

What part of my post even came close to pointing to that as an outcome I'd desire? We were talking about a stoner coming to my house for his tax handout. You've said he's a stoner, I have no problem with that, why would I agree with a test, coz I don't.

**skippa1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:37

Originally Posted by mashman

Yet

Who says they (potential employees with positive test) wouldn't be straight and ready for work?

as I have said before, if they are contributing(working and paying tax) and not posing a risk to others, I dont care, Im not paying for their habit.

**Brian d marge** · 2nd July 2012, 20:37

BTW , ive had a wonderful day at work drinking red wine and running a new component through, its tests....
,
Stephen .....

**Ocean1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:39

Originally Posted by mashman

What are the rules?

Touch my stuff and I'll hurt you.

Touch my people and I'll kill you.

**skippa1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:40

Originally Posted by mashman

What are the rules?

I try to. I try to. I would indeed. I agree, to a degree, if nothing changes, nothing changes. I'm trying to do both and not all are leeches.

If the govt says it's ok for me to give my tax to a stoner, then sure, why not, .

Originally Posted by mashman

What part of my post even came close to pointing to that as an outcome I'd desire? We were talking about a stoner coming to my house for his tax handout. You've said he's a stoner, I have no problem with that, why would I agree with a test, coz I don't.

I thought you were happy to what the government says

**skippa1** · 2nd July 2012, 20:41

Originally Posted by bogan

And how do you propose we ensure that they get skills that will give them a job at the end of it? Make dole life more miserable?

do our best to get them a job, the second part of an application these days is a drug test

**bogan** · 2nd July 2012, 20:43

Originally Posted by skippa1

do our best to get them a job, the second part of an application these days is a drug test

My god, you're a genius, the way to fix the benefit, is to get them jobs!

I think any solution will need to be a little more specific there bud.

**mashman** · 2nd July 2012, 20:43

Originally Posted by skippa1

as I have said before, if they are contributing(working and paying tax) and not posing a risk to others, I dont care, Im not paying for their habit.

but you are turning away people who have traces of a drug in their system irrespective of the type of smoker they are. Cake and eat it? or just not thought it through? or met them and thought they were lazy because the looked like it?

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Touch my stuff and I'll hurt you.

Touch my people and I'll kill you.

Fair rules.

Originally Posted by skippa1

I thought you were happy to what the government says

Not at all... but I'm happy to see it come in to law.