Welfare support and drug testing

[scumdog]

So plenty of time to go on a P bender, drop some disco biscuits and coke yer head off before the next test... unless they receive a surprise attack that is.

Has anyone ever been caught carrying pre-prepared pee (that's wee wee not the drug pseudohavingfun).

Oh, I see what you're trying to say: that everybody should be allowed to work when they're stoned etc...

or is it everybody that's stoned etc should have to work?

[mashman]

Oh, I see what you're trying to say: that everybody should be allowed to work when they're stoned etc...

or is it everybody that's stoned etc should have to work?

Only if they think they can get away with it

[husaberg]

So plenty of time to go on a P bender, drop some disco biscuits and coke yer head off before the next test... unless they receive a surprise attack that is.

Has anyone ever been caught carrying pre-prepared pee (that's wee wee not the drug pseudohavingfun).

like i said its random so who knows when......
Its been a while now so could be tomorrow.. next week... who knows. i just added up how many times and divided by how long ago it started.
The boss in the sister depot got tested last time
re the BYO pee, Not here anyway....Think someone (at a large SOE involving er,,,coal) got caught through with some he has prepared.
The testing company had to wait about 30 minutes before i could "feel in the mood to pee one time". ( I must be shy)
I had just gone weewee when i won the lotto draw for the day. So i can't imagine how bad it would have been for someone, if you were worried about the result.

But realistically the guys they know the score, they know what they have to lose. I would say IMO its easier to stay straight isn't it.


Also Mashy.I have some bad news re the one lady objector in the team. i took in a copy of the national policy today, she read it and changed her mind when i asked why she said the counseling and second chance policy Swayed her, and now says she is in favour.
She also said she thought about it and feels its only fair that if she get's tested then its also fair the recipients of her tax money do too.
she doesn't favour. The work one test and out policy all the levels though and probably never will, I empathise with that sometimes too.

It begs a question for you though, Why don't you currently take drugs. Don't worry its not designed to be a loaded question, but why not at the moment?

[husaberg]

I thought Flight of the Conchords only had 2 guys in it. Best laugh I have had in a while.

they want the nigger with the biggest nuts. well guess what? he is I and I am him....

okay. white cnuts. Prepare to be incensed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTm49jSF93s

Shit i didn't get it at all. Should i be angry Alkeeezel asked me to watch it and therefor waste my time........

I also don't get why, i was supposed to be racially incensed by it. The talentless dude in the middle was whiter than me?

Did he actually mean "be pepared to see the results of incest"

OH yeah the Concords rock. But then again they are clever.....

[FJRider]

like i said its random so who knows when......

And ... prior to going on a benefit .. and as a pre-employment condition.

[mashman]

like i said its random so who knows when......
Its been a while now so could be tomorrow.. next week... who knows. i just added up how many times and divided by how long ago it started.
The boss in the sister depot got tested last time
re the BYO pee, Not here anyway....Think someone (at a large SOE involving er,,,coal) got caught through with some he has prepared.
The testing company had to wait about 30 minutes before i could "feel in the mood to pee one time". ( I must be shy)
I had just gone weewee when i won the lotto draw for the day. So i can't imagine how bad it would have been for someone, if you were worried about the result.

But realistically the guys they know the score, they know what they have to lose. I would say IMO its easier to stay straight isn't it.

Also Mashy.I have some bad news re the one lady objector in the team. i took in a copy of the national policy today, she read it and changed her mind when i asked why she said the counseling and second chance policy Swayed her, and now says she is in favour.
She also said she thought about it and feels its only fair that if she get's tested then its also fair the recipients of her tax money do too.
she doesn't favour. The work one test and out policy all the levels though and probably never will, I empathise with that sometimes too.

It begs a question for you though, Why don't you currently take drugs. Don't worry its not designed to be a loaded question, but why not at the moment?

I understand that these people know the score... but the attitude of, because I have to then someone else should too, is damaging. I see and hear it day in day out and wonder what happened to people that would twist them so badly that they ignore the fact that not everyone is as capable or able to handle situations as them. In regards to the issue and because someone else gets tested therefore so should someone else, if it's health and safety then fine, yes I understand it entirely, but I still don't agree with it as I see drugs as relatively benign and on a par with alcohol. I find it amusing that as long as a drug isn't in your system, then you are deemed not to be a drug user where that really isn't necessarily the case. I get that it's an indicator and that it may highlight issues, but it's like calling everyone that claims some form of benefit lazy... and there are plenty of fucked up people who don't take drugs. All of these things make a mockery of drug testing imho... and those who want bene's tested because they receive money are after nothing more than revenge, coz it certainly they certainly aren't after fairness, else we'd all need to be drug tested (probably not too far away) and those on the dole would be paid more.

I don't currently (last time was this weekend and before that a couple of monthish ago) because I don't... no real reason for it, spent a year or 2, maybe 3 (didn't keep score) years not so long ago where I was a very regular cannabis user, don't crave it, but do miss it. Since "stopping" I've put on weight, I don't sleep anywhere near as well and I'm not as relaxed (understatement mrs m would likely say). There's a fuckload more to it than just getting stoned... but I wouldn't understand those who just wanna get stoned or those who don't get stoned at all to understand what I get out of it... and should I decide to go back to being a regular user someday, I'll potentially run the risk of losing my job should a drugs test be a part of my job and needlessly so as far as I'm concerned... but again, I don't expect people to understand the perspective.

[husaberg]

but the attitude of, because I have to then someone else should too, is damaging.

In regards to the issue and because someone else gets tested therefore so should someone else,
I see and hear it day in day out and wonder what happened to people that would twist them so badly that they ignore the fact that not everyone is as capable or able to handle situations as them.

and those who want bene's tested because they receive money are after nothing more than revenge, coz it certainly they certainly aren't after fairness, else we'd all need to be drug tested (probably not too far away) and those on the dole would be paid more.

if it's health and safety then fine, yes I understand it entirely, but I still don't agree with it as I see drugs as relatively benign and on a par with alcohol.

I have grouped these together, but i can agree that everyone's different. Capable or able or unable of handling different situations and so forth.

But people will always expect certain levels of parity of behavior and treatment it's only human nature to expect that.

I don't see it as kicking beneficiaries or unfair treatment i see it as expect a certain level of behavior to meet the general public's expectations of who should be recieving a benefit (personally i would also include the DPB in here but its not in the policy) .

The policy is from my reading of it does not seem draconian in anyway to me.
As it allows for counseling, treatment, second chances and follows pretty closely to the treatment Landcorp, Transpower, Solid Energy, Asurequality and all the other SOE's i am aware of.

All it is asking that the people on the unemployment benefit meet the conditions a lot of employers would expect for an employee or potential employee.This i see as reasonable.

This i see as a responsibility of the person receiving the unemployment benefit,Something the rest of society has contributed to through tax.

I have lived a little and while i do see Cannabis to be rather be-nine.
I do see the effects of heavy and or habitual users as damaging. The damage i see is hard to define but it seems to rob a lot of people of their self motivation, their ambition, desire, the inner drive (for want of a better description their get up and go.
I am not saying its everyone and that some people are not going to be like that anyway. but it is a definite trend i have observed.These loss of vigour/internal motivation are the last thing that someone on the unemployment benefit needs.

P the other amphetamines and high grade stimulants i don't see a place for, neither any of the unperscribed opiates.

Don't get me wrong a lot of the recreational drugs, i see as relatively harmless for the majority of users.
Same for alcohol. for a lot of people alcohol is sadly also a problem, But not for everyone hence why we test for this all the time "check points etc"

but it's like calling everyone that claims some form of benefit lazy... and there are plenty of fucked up people who don't take drugs. All of these things make a mockery of drug testing imho...

I would never say all beneficiaries are lazy. Saddly some do defiantly use it as a out. A free ride, and that's not what the unemployment benefit is for.

I don't currently (last time was this weekend and before that a couple of monthish ago) because I don't... no real reason for it, spent a year or 2, maybe 3 (didn't keep score) years not so long ago where I was a very regular cannabis user, don't crave it, but do miss it. Since "stopping" I've put on weight, I don't sleep anywhere near as well and I'm not as relaxed (understatement mrs m would likely say). There's a fuckload more to it than just getting stoned... but I wouldn't understand those who just wanna get stoned or those who don't get stoned at all to understand what I get out of it... and should I decide to go back to being a regular user someday, I'll potentially run the risk of losing my job should a drugs test be a part of my job and needlessly so as far as I'm concerned... but again, I don't expect people to understand the perspective.

Thanks for sharing this it makes it easier to understand where you come from

[mashman]

I have grouped these together, but i can agree that everyone's different. Capable or able or unable of handling different situations and so forth.

But people will always expect certain levels of parity of behavior and treatment it's only human nature to expect that.

I dunno about that. I think as long as people are honest and don't do something stupid that injures others, like being under the influence at work or murder, I highly doubt parity comes into it. I assume that's what you were aiming at? That's all I expect of anyone.

I don't see it as kicking beneficiaries or unfair treatment i see it as expect a certain level of behavior to meet the general public's expectations of who should be recieving a benefit (personally i would also include the DPB in here but its not in the policy) .

The policy is from my reading of it does not seem draconian in anyway to me.
As it allows for counseling, treatment, second chances and follows pretty closely to the treatment Landcorp, Transpower, Solid Energy, Asurequality and all the other SOE's i am aware of.

All it is asking that the people on the unemployment benefit meet the conditions a lot of employers would expect for an employee or potential employee.This i see as reasonable.

This i see as a responsibility of the person receiving the unemployment benefit,Something the rest of society has contributed to through tax.

I have lived a little and while i do see Cannabis to be rather be-nine.
I do see the effects of heavy and or habitual users as damaging. The damage i see is hard to define but it seems to rob a lot of people of their self motivation, their ambition, desire, the inner drive (for want of a better description their get up and go.
I am not saying its everyone and that some people are not going to be like that anyway. but it is a definite trend i have observed.These loss of vigour/internal motivation are the last thing that someone on the unemployment benefit needs.

P the other amphetamines and high grade stimulants i don't see a place for, neither any of the unperscribed opiates.

Don't get me wrong a lot of the recreational drugs, i see as relatively harmless for the majority of users.
Same for alcohol. for a lot of people alcohol is sadly also a problem, But not for everyone hence why we test for this all the time "check points etc"

I get it, I really do. You expect something from someone else because that is the position you are in. Likely similar to what I'm saying below no doubt you would retort. The difference being that I'm not expecting anyone to be forced into being tested under the threat of losing money. I'm only expecting people to not be under the influence at work... and should they fuck up whilst under the influence, then by all means hammer them hard, but not until any damage has been done. Yes I know that's "dangerous" and that's why such legislation exists, but I will state again, accidents happen whether under the influence or not. I'm not too happy about personal responsibility being legislated away to the extent where it stops people from being allowed to have a job.

I would never say all beneficiaries are lazy. Saddly some do defiantly use it as a out. A free ride, and that's not what the unemployment benefit is for.

Then "target" the individual directly, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... but that's not likely eh, we're too happy to take the easy road by tarring everyone in that position.

Thanks for sharing this it makes it easier to understand where you come from

Maybe ya do... but that's not why I'm "arguing" for beneficiaries not to be tested, not really anyway. I see the flaws in the testing methodology and if you can't tell that someone is under the influence, i.e. impaired, at any given point in time, then I won't justify the test as "valid"... shame that isn't the logic. As I've said previously, accidents happen with or without people being under the influence, who's to say that had the person been "straight" that the accident wouldn't have still happened? Tis like that poor fella and his passengers in the balloon that crashed. I highly doubt that drugs cannabis was a factor, but that was the drum that was being beaten by the media. The dangers of drug use? I don't see it.

[FJRider]

Then "target" the individual directly, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... but that's not likely eh, we're too happy to take the easy road by tarring everyone in that position.

"Everyone' is not being "tarred" ... just the one's that use drugs. Being under the influence of booze is "frowned on" now in the workplace. (and it's legal to buy if you are old enough) Why should being under the influence of illegal substances be ok ... ???



The proposed new rules about putting children in day-care doesn't seem to be getting much attention ... more time for mum and/or dad to have a smoke without the kids about ... maybe ...

[Ocean1]

"Everyone' is not being "tarred"

Is a fucking good idea, though...

[mashman]

"Everyone' is not being "tarred" ... just the one's that use drugs. Being under the influence of booze is "frowned on" now in the workplace. (and it's legal to buy if you are old enough) Why should being under the influence of illegal substances be ok ... ???

The proposed new rules about putting children in day-care doesn't seem to be getting much attention ... more time for mum and/or dad to have a smoke without the kids about ... maybe ...

They are. They are all being tarred as they are all subject to drugs tests... irrespective of whether the job is real or not . Why shouldn't being under the influence of illegal (reefer madness) substances be ok?

Do you have any idea why some of these kids aren't in day-care? I know of a few, that I won't go into as they were part of a system I built for a govt org... but there's always the, because they want to spend more time with their kids and when the parents meet, the kids get to socialise.

[mashman]

Is a fucking good idea, though...

If you have to tar them again, would that make them re-tarred?

[Ocean1]

If you have to tar them again, would that make them re-tarred?

Only if you use feathers too.

[Madness]

reefer, madness?

Why not old chap?

[FJRider]

They are. They are all being tarred as they are all subject to drugs tests... irrespective of whether the job is real or not . Why shouldn't being under the influence of illegal (reefer madness) substances be ok?

I live next door to a pub. My street is the next one along from it's main entrance/car-park. I have been followed into my street by plod ... thinking (assuming ... ???) I'm trying to avoid a checkpoint. I am tarred with the brush that some DO attempt to avoid them. I don't mind being tested ... if I have nothing to hide.

Do you have any idea why some of these kids aren't in day-care? I know of a few, that I won't go into as they were part of a system I built for a govt org... but there's always the, because they want to spend more time with their kids and when the parents meet, the kids get to socialise.

I know of a few reasons ... one is they're too dam lazy to take them. I understand there is a number of free hours available ... so one reason can't be money ...