Welfare support and drug testing

[Akzle]

Who are the fucken retards here?

well... FJ is mos. def. one, i'd say bob is another contender.

[sidecar bob]

So your not willing to listen to the views of those AFFECTED PERSONS whom this thread, is all about?
Maybe therein lies the problem with the unemployed, drug use and benefits?
Has anyone really listened to those round pegs as they get jammed screaming into square holes?
I hear: "the system is antagonistic to me, I am programmed differently, please provide me with a reasonable and sensible alternative to what works for you"

Autism is rising RAPIDLY. Only 16% of those with a formal diagnosis of autism, are in full time employment.

Make provision within society for different others and you wont have to pay for them anymore. I had a Russian rocket scientist mate who couldnt get a job in NZ, yet he was a genius. Got his green card and he was gone. NZ didnt deserve him

Who are the fucken retards here?

Who are the retards?? maybe the ones that suggest a birth defect & a lifestyle choice are somehow comparable. Seriously, W.T.F dude?
I suppose you feel aggrieved that people in wheelchairs get special parking places too?
If thats not retardation. . . .
See ya.

[avgas]

So to drag this back on topic.
What arguments do people have for or against being drug tested to receive a payment that they did not earn?

[caseye]

Well, as I'm currently unemployed but not receiving any govt assistance due to the fact that my wife and I are married have raised 3 kids to adulthood and she earns a paltry 30 something thou per year after working her ass off for many years in her chosen field, I feel qualified to say.
If it's good enough for me to have to undergo drug or any other sort of test in order to be employable.
Then it has to be good enough for unemployed who DO GET a benefit for whatever reason to undergo the same test. A single fail should be enough to stop their benefit, not 1, a warning then a second and only then a benefit cut of 50%.
Pandering is what we are doing, stop it the first time they fail.
But, if they don't fail and if they make the effort to continue looking for and finally finding employment as I will again, then perhaps they should have their circumstance looked into further, maybe we could increase the size of the state house they're in, give them extra grocery vouchers so their kids do eat OK.
We are not doing some of what we do well enough.
Rules should be for all, not specific groups however that group is made up.
We all fail if we don't all go forward, we used to, there were no hand outs for doing nothing,there we're no 4th generations in the same state house, there was enough work that anyone who wanted to work , could and pretty much all did.
Blaming someone, anything, the govt doesn't cut it.
Winston wants work for the dole, me to, I'd do it if it was there to be done, but it isn't, why? it would stop so many other peoples jobs (govt ones of course)dead in their tracks.

[Akzle]

So to drag this back on topic.
What arguments do people have for or against being drug tested to receive a payment that they did not earn?

bahahahaha. go check out pages 1 through about 3. the rest is all BS.

[caseye]

bahahahaha. go check out pages 1 through about 3. the rest is all BS.

Come on there AkZ, try harder,put your bloody neck on the line and say something constructive,k OK at least what you think might be,then sit back and as usual around here let the unpickers have their go.
I for one, would like to see where you are really coming from.

[Akzle]

Come on there AkZ, try harder,put your bloody neck on the line and say something constructive,k OK at least what you think might be,then sit back and as usual around here let the unpickers have their go.
I for one, would like to see where you are really coming from.

i forget what the question is.
i'm pretty sure i've contributed my neck through these near-40 pages.
i'm coming from northland.

i'll summarise again.

i think, since politicians get the greatest "benefits" from taxees that they should be drug tested first.

i think that beneficiaries who get kicked off a benefit will end up robbing you moaning white cunts to get their $$

i think it's an easy way to get people off the benefit (same as this "arrest warrant=no benefit" thing going through) thereby getting nearer to balancing the books (for now) and turning the volume down on white-cunts-moaning. (erstwhile keeping their bank accounts a-float)

i think the money spent on the testing could be better spent (say, on keeping the "kiwi"rail boys (or the smelters, or the coal-miners etc) employed.

i think there actually ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. and that government hasn't done shit to help that.

i think all drugs should be legal. (thereby eliminating the "need" to test, and freeing up a stack of prison space, a saving a fat fucking stack on policy enforcement costs.)

any other questions?

[scumdog]

i forget what the question is.
i'm pretty sure i've contributed my neck through these near-40 pages.
i'm coming from northland.

i'll summarise again.

i think, since politicians get the greatest "benefits" from taxees that they should be drug tested first.

i think that beneficiaries who get kicked off a benefit will end up robbing you moaning white cunts to get their $$

i think it's an easy way to get people off the benefit (same as this "arrest warrant=no benefit" thing going through) thereby getting nearer to balancing the books (for now) and turning the volume down on white-cunts-moaning. (erstwhile keeping their bank accounts a-float)

i think the money spent on the testing could be better spent (say, on keeping the "kiwi"rail boys (or the smelters, or the coal-miners etc) employed.

i think there actually ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. and that government hasn't done shit to help that.

i think all drugs should be legal. (thereby eliminating the "need" to test, and freeing up a stack of prison space, a saving a fat fucking stack on policy enforcement costs.)

any other questions?

Yes.
Where is this utopean society such as you dream of??

Not NZ that's for sure.

But then you do have different 'standards'...

Me? - I'm ecstatic, love it as it is.

[avgas]

i forget what the question is.

So just to clear it up...
You don't believe beneficiaries should be drug tested.
......on the basis that no one should be drug tested. Because drugs would be legal.
Correct?

[caseye]

Interesting, OK I'll give you almost all of those points as being if not completely sensible at least possible.
I don't disagree that any money spent on punishment would quite possibly be better spent making sure that there is work for those who need/want it.
not sure and have personal experience that makes me cringe at the thought of making all drugs legal(if not, then at least not jailable)
I'd listen to serious argument along these lines but, tell me, if anyone who is unemployed and wants to work has to undergo a test of any sort to become employed is there any reason why , anyone who is being paid a benefit of any sort should not also have to undergo that test and should not then be subject to some sort of disincentive if they fail.
I can understand and fully agree that taking something from them, that they WRONGLY, think is their right to have ( and herein lies the problem) will make them more moronic and criminally inclined towards those who work and try to make their families lives better.
But surely, at some point we HAVE to treat everyone in this country of "ours," THE SAME and if that means breaking a mindset that is wrong then that is what we must do despite the immediate and unsavory prospect that will follow.
We cannot continue down a path of divided rights and perceived wrongs without cracking a few heads for the greater good. Or can we???? Thoughts.

[Akzle]

Yes.
Where is this utopean society such as you dream of??
...But then you do have different 'standards'...

uhhh. it seems to start and stop at my gate

Me? - I'm ecstatic, love it as it is.

yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

[Akzle]

So just to clear it up...
You don't believe beneficiaries should be drug tested.
......on the basis that no one should be drug tested. Because drugs would be legal.
Correct?

yeah. i'll go with that.
...although dropping THAT into the current system would be fucking hilarious, i think the whole system needs a purty-up, then it wouldn't pose any problem.

...if anyone who is unemployed and wants to work has to undergo a test of any sort to become employed is there any reason why , anyone who is being paid a benefit of any sort should not also have to undergo that test
...I can understand and fully agree that taking something from them, that they WRONGLY, think is their right to have ( and herein lies the problem) will make them more moronic and criminally inclined towards those who work
...We cannot continue down a path of divided rights and perceived wrongs without cracking a few heads for the greater good.<- Or can we????

1) i can see the sense there, but i think the largest problems caused by drugs, are caused by their status as "illegal". secondly, if someone fails to gain employment BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DUMB ASS (ie failing drugs test), they have a 10 week stand down from the benefit. i think this is fairly loosely enforced, but the system IS there already.
2) actually, according to the UN, social security IS a right. for everyone. and since you (presumably) voted for the government, you've agreed to those conditions.
3) you're quite right, but you also prove yourself wrong, in that you present an "us and them" mentality.
this is great. it keeps you scared and under control. and means they CAN KEEP GOING TO THE BANK. this is the bottom line, in all cases. money-money-money (*cabaret YT)
"the greater good" argument is null and void.
i have the cure for cancer. i'll give it to you if you kill 10, 000 smiling pretty white kids.
greater good uh?

there DOES need to be a mentality shift. the debt-greed-money system needs to be abandoned, capitalism/commercialism/consumerism are all BS. and while you're all arguing about shit. they're going to the bank...

[scumdog]

yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

...bloody near blew a mouthful of very expensive bourbon all over the key-board when I read that, only just stopped laughing now, sheesh, you might have warned me!!

[short-circuit]

yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

He's like Darryl Keerigan from the Castle...If you've got fuck all brains or imagination you'll be quite easily pleased

[caseye]

Ah, will you two quit it, now I'm nearly losing me bourbon, hummmm bourbon, coke,check, bourbon, check. Back soon!


Na Akz, I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.
I'm known for being a bit hard nosed when it comes to any minority that aren't pulling their collective weight, won't deny that, but have mates from all parts of this big wide world of ours, many of them from here, many of those browner than me.
Funny thing is all of my mates work and pay our gubbermint their pittance, guess that makes us all ineligible to comment on unemployed lay abouts who actively do nothing more than they have to to maintain their present lifestyle.