Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

Au contraire i don't need an excuse, I am not lacking in empathy. Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.

If there were enough well paid jobs then I might agree with you in regards to how I felt about their predicament. That isn't the case and as there aren't enough well paid jobs as it is, some people work multiple jobs and still claim some form of support, I would go out on a limb and say that there is always going to be a percentage of the population who need financial support to live. What they spend it on is entirely up to them, personal responsibility and all. Otherwise why should the be "allowed" to buy TV's/cars/games consoles/motorcycles/couch's etc...? vastly more expensive than some recreationals.

However I'd still disagree with the drug testing policy, as I disagree with its implementation in regards to those who already work. I'm all for drugs testing where there is concern that a person is being affected by some form of substance abuse whilst at work, as well as post incident... but not to prove that the workforce is substance free in their private life also.

[Ocean1]

How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?

That's the thing about charity, it behoves the beneficiary to behave in a manner that matches the benefactor’s expectations. Like it or not most taxpayers don’t wish to donate to either a recipient who will spent the donation on drugs, or one who has enough money without the donation, and yet chooses to spend it on drugs.

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.

I hate to have to mention this but the most popular illegal drug in this country actually grows on trees.

Almost all drugs do. Doesn’t stop fuckwits paying huge money for them.

[Madness]

Almost all drugs do. Doesn’t stop fuckwits paying huge money for them.

They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal. Where can I find an LSD bush?

[Ocean1]

They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal.

Correct.

Where can I find an LSD bush?

Why settle for the synthetic?

[Madness]

Why settle for the synthetic?

Hallucinogens are way cooler than opiates.

[FJRider]

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.

Getting a job is easy. Keeping it is the hard bit. Employers expect you to earn your pay too ... (bastard's)

And the terms of employment are hard to live with too ... who reads those things before you sign them anyway ... ???

[husaberg]

If there were enough well paid jobs then I might agree with you in regards to how I felt about their predicament. That isn't the case and as there aren't enough well paid jobs as it is, some people work multiple jobs and still claim some form of support, I would go out on a limb and say that there is always going to be a percentage of the population who need financial support to live. What they spend it on is entirely up to them, personal responsibility and all. Otherwise why should the be "allowed" to buy TV's/cars/games consoles/motorcycles/couch's etc...? vastly more expensive than some recreationals.

I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.

However I'd still disagree with the drug testing policy, as I disagree with its implementation in regards to those who already work. I'm all for drugs testing where there is concern that a person is being affected by some form of substance abuse whilst at work, as well as post incident... but not to prove that the workforce is substance free in their private life also.

Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

[Akzle]

Cause aside from the lack of social responsibility around the dangers of further stratifying an already massively unequal society through creating extreme poverty (when we already have an underclass and around 200,000 children in poverty), we've still not had an explaination from the economic imperativists about how this makes economic sense.

see: george carlin on our similarities.
also.
who cares about the cost, national will make the country rich by selling it! (or something :s)

...Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.
...
Because you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability.

ahahahahahahaha.
where in your society does it mention accountability or individual responsibility?! the legislators and law society have well and truly done away with that hogwash.

also, and not for the first time,
WHAT ABOUT THE BENEFICIARIES WHO GROW THEIR OWN DRUGS?

Are they testing for legal drugs? gee are drugs free, do any of the benefits have minimum standards that apply to the receiver of the benefit, check them out you may find that they do.

You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own.

my/our opinion is based on what will probably happen in the real world. not la-dee-da, JK is king, sell the assets and lock up them uppity murreys, white-folk BS.
why would they test for legal drugs? (i dont think most drug tests c/would differentiate between the legal and illigal breeds...)

...Like it or not most taxpayers don’t wish to donate to either a recipient who will spent the donation on drugs, or one who has enough money without the donation, and yet chooses to spend it on drugs.

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.

what job? not sure if you've been in a hovel for the last year, but when 600+ people with university degrees are applying for supermarket positions, i think it's a fairly good indicator that there innt enough jobs.
as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.
so what about that?
the benefit gained by cutting politicians/lawyers/judges/polices salaries by 10-40% would probably be enough to service all int'l loans and have the country fluid/solvent,
implementing a drug-test-for-benefit scheme is going to be a net loss, thrice over.

They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal. Where can I find an LSD bush?

this is where teh politzei/stasi come in. they keep doing raids and shit. basic economics, where demand>supply = inflated prices.
so quite right. it's due to it being "illegal"

Hallucinogens are way cooler than opiates.

broadly speaking, entheogen, specifically, *psychedelic, not an opiate. opiates are derived from teh poppies.

...until it goes onto recreational drug then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for,That is with what a benefit is for.

...They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

1)you mean to tell me you've never travelled more than 100km/h? you've never been drunk in public? that's all in breach of the social contract/"deal you signed up for" (by voting). tut tut.
but a benefit is for people who are unemployed, invalid, or that have a vagina. unfortunately for YOU there is no stipulation that they MUST spend it on food/not smokes/not booze/car repayments/washing machines/shoes for the kids.
unfortunately for you, as adults they are deemed competent of making decisions for themselves, and thus the social security payment does not come with many conditions...

2)..."they" did NOT choose their fate. as with most people who leave home, they make choices, those choices may or may not be viewed by other people as "bad" or "evil" or "an infringement against legislation"
, now since they have done it, they presumably do not believe it to be "bad" or "evil" and they probably had very little to do with the legislation that they apparently infringed

[scumdog]

Bored-as.

[husaberg]

[COLOR="#139922"]ahahahahahahaha.
where in your society does it mention accountability or individual responsibility?! the legislators and law society have well and truly done away with that hogwash.


also, and not for the first time,
WHAT ABOUT THE BENEFICIARIES WHO GROW THEIR OWN DRUGS?.

last time i looked in the court pages your question was answered.

why would they test for legal drugs? (i dont think most drug tests c/would differentiate between the legal and illigal breeds...)

the prescription for the legally prescribed ones from a health professional is generally a good giveaway

as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.
so what about that?

Well you you resent tax, the police, roads and hospitals well that's a clever argument to put forward.............

but a benefit is for people who are unemployed, invalid, or that have a vagina. unfortunately for YOU there is no stipulation that they MUST spend it on food/not smokes/not booze/car repayments/washing machines/shoes for the kids.
unfortunately for you, as adults they are deemed competent of making decisions for themselves, and thus the social security payment does not come with many conditions...

sorry you are wrong the benefit and weather you get one is decided by the people that hand it out not you.they decide the recipient not you.
they are currently in the process of deciding that drug users no longer qualify...that's their prerogative weather you agree or not.

2)..."they" did NOT choose their fate. as with most people who leave home, they make choices, those choices may or may not be viewed by other people as "bad" or "evil" or "an infringement against legislation"
, now since they have done it, they presumably do not believe it to be "bad" or "evil" and they probably had very little to do with the legislation that they apparently infringed

The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.


Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

For your benefit i will include the whole post maybe you should read it rather than respond to part of it out of context.
When you take the to=ime to read it you may then see that they choose their Fate, They knew they could be drug tested at any time.
They knew their job was gone if they tested positive.

[Madness]

Bored-as.

Take a trip.

[Ocean1]

what job? not sure if you've been in a hovel for the last year, but when 600+ people with university degrees are applying for supermarket positions, i think it's a fairly good indicator that there innt enough jobs.]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

[scumdog]

[COLOR="#139922"]


as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.

As a (former) taxee why are you complaining at all about how money from OTHER tax payers is spent??

You have no valid argument...etcetera etcetera etcetera....

[FJRider]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

But all the cute chicks do those courses ...

So my degree in underwater basket weaving is not useful then ...

[mashman]

I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.

What's the big issue in regards to drugs that makes it a deal breaker? It only makes someone less employable if they refuse the test.

Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

I agree that the employer and employee could talk terms and drug use most definitely should be discussed if the employer wishes to pursue with random drug tests etc... I have seen a few drugs clauses in contracts I have signed and as sometimes I have taken that to heart because I needed the job. Oddly enough something that I resented at the time along with me feeling disappointed that I was toeing that line. It'll not happen again, but then I haven't had any drugs in some months, by choice too to a certain degree. So whilst I'm sure you'll think that I'll only have myself to blame should I ever be sacked for having drugs in my system, I will be blaming the employer . Radical train of thought I know... but if I stay drugs free whilst at work, always have, always will (bar once or twice in my youth), then I will not see it as a valid reason to be sacked. Bummer to hear about your colleagues, and their families, having had that treatment, it must really piss them off that the employer was looking to get rid of them. Seems like a waste, snigger, to get rid of good staff because they have "residue" left in their system.

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.