Welfare support and drug testing

[Ocean1]

You'll be glad to hear that I won't go into in to the supply of money affecting interest rates and by default inflation rates and by default unemployment and back again. It matters enough to some.

Thank fuck for that, I could do without more horse shit today.

[short-circuit]

Welfare Reforms—Pre-employment Drug Testing for Job Seekers

The thing is the argument is horse-shit.

NZ doesn't have a problem filling vacancies due to overwhelming numbers of applicants on drugs, rather, the number of jobs is steadily drying up as the economy stagnates and the number of people out of work is growing. Local grocery stores can pick and choose between phD grads and rocket scientists...I'm sure they can eliminate the smack addicts.

[husaberg]

The thing is the argument is horse-shit.

NZ doesn't have a problem filling vacancies due to overwhelming numbers of applicants on drugs, rather, the number of jobs is steadily drying up as the economy stagnates and the number of people out of work is growing. Local grocery stores can pick and choose between phD grads and rocket scientists...I'm sure they can eliminate the smack addicts.

Sorry you kind of missed the point

Its going to happen regardless.

Count the times it says reasonable.
There is of course two reasons for this.

Reasonable is a legal term relating to the applications of drug testing, which currently defines when it can be applied.

It is reasonable.

[FJRider]

The thing is the argument is horse-shit.

Totally pointless.

It's going to happen.

If there is a change of goverment in the next election ... it won't be changed back.

If you want it changed back ... vote for the party that wants it as it is now.

Did I say ... it was totally pointless ... ???

[short-circuit]

Nothing to do with it's inevitability - obviously it will be enacted, just that the line of argument being used as justification by these cunts and you retards is so obviously total bollocks. Don't insult anyone else's intellence any further by suggesting it's anything other than bene-bashing

[husaberg]

just that the line of argument being used as justification by these cunts and you retards is so obviously total bollocks. Don't insult anyone else's intelligence any further by suggesting it's anything other than bene-bashing

Say again....

What is the unemployment benefit for in your eyes then. My understanding it is for people that want to find work.

How is it picking on the unemployment beneficiaries.

Also why does it worry you so much. (not meant to be antagonistic BTW)

[mashman]

Referendums aren't worth a pinch of shit. Hoops to go through to get one ... wait for an election to hold one ... and if the result isn't liked by the party in power ... don't need to do anything at all. No binding responsibility to take ANY action. End of story ....
Remember the one we had to decide if MMP was to stay ... ??? remember the action the goverment took after it ... ????

If you don't remember ... there wasn't any.

Remember the golden rule ... The one's with the gold ... makes the rules. And NAH ... the couches will still be full ... if they could get off their arse's ... they'd have a job.

They probably cost a pretty penny too. Shame there aren't more of them... but then even 1 loss would be like blood in the water.

Why would I care about the voting system? If they can't even manage to put a vote of no confidence or something similar on the paper and take it as a registered vote then I highly doubt that changing the voting system is going to accomplish anything. I wonder how many of the flip flop voters woulda ticked that box instead of one of the political parties on show.

heh, that one is kind of engrained into my mind for some bizarre reason.

[mashman]

Reasonable is mentioned a lot, we all know why. Hint there's two reasons for it

Because this policy has no basis and is playing on the naivety of people and fear of those who use drugs.

They're bathing in their sarcasm

[mashman]

Thank fuck for that, I could do without more horse shit today.

You're welcome.

[husaberg]

Because this policy has no basis and is playing on the naivety of people and fear of those who use drugs.

They're bathing in their sarcasm

err.......Got sick of waiting and answered it my self anyway.

Sorry you kind of missed the point

Its going to happen regardless.

Count the times it says reasonable.
There is of course two reasons for this.

Reasonable is a legal term relating to the applications of drug testing, which currently defines when it can be applied.

It is reasonable.

[sidecar bob]

Well I guess this thread continues to prove my theory that stoners have an overwhelming need to impose their point of view on others, regardless of how idiotic it is.
Why dont you stoners just start your own businesses & then you can have a job with no drug testing. That would be an awesome idea, instead of relying on others for a hand out, while you turn your brains into clearly what appears to be fuck all.

[short-circuit]

Well I guess this thread continues to prove my theory that stoners have an overwhelming need to impose their point of view on others, regardless of how idiotic it is.
Why dont you stoners just start your own businesses & then you can have a job with no drug testing. That would be an awesome idea, instead of relying on others for a hand out, while you turn your brains into clearly what appears to be fuck all.

I think you'd have to be pretty brainless to assume that those who disagree with you on this topic are all druggies. I don't do any drugs at all alcohol included.

This is all beside the point anyway really (as you would know if you weren't as "naturally" thick as pigshit) as it is about discriminating against a group of people most in need (including children)

[oneofsix]

I think you'd have to be pretty brainless to assume that those who disagree with you on this topic are all druggies. I don't do any drugs at all alcohol included.

This is all beside the point anyway really (as you would know if you weren't as "naturally" thick as pigshit) as it is about discriminating against a group of people most in need (including children)

+1 almost. I do have the occasional drink, about once a month at PnJs although I did have bitters in a drink on Saturday night.

This is about short sighted, knee jerk, discrimatary laws to appeal to the greedies and red necks at the expense of the needy. Now watch some greedy or redneck try and quote "life style beneficiaries".

[sidecar bob]

I think you'd have to be pretty brainless to assume that those who disagree with you on this topic are all druggies. I don't do any drugs at all alcohol included.

This is all beside the point anyway really (as you would know if you weren't as "naturally" thick as pigshit) as it is about discriminating against a group of people most in need (including children)

Yeah, cos people NEED drugs, obviously to raise children etc. I was a bit slow in picking up on that.
My "natural thick as pigshitness" has resulted in me being the owner of a very sucessful business for nearly two decades.
I dont need to rely on others to give me money because im too fuckin lazy & useless to get a job.
Greedy redneck, now theres a good one. What about self supporting taxpayer.

[Paul in NZ]

Well I guess this thread continues to prove my theory that stoners have an overwhelming need to impose their point of view on others, regardless of how idiotic it is.
Why dont you stoners just start your own businesses & then you can have a job with no drug testing. That would be an awesome idea, instead of relying on others for a hand out, while you turn your brains into clearly what appears to be fuck all.

Hey be fair - after all they have created a whole new business sector... Drug testing job applicants....