Welfare support and drug testing

**wharekura** · 2nd July 2012, 08:22

Common sense at long last? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10816778
I don't mind giving a hand-up to those in need, but for those that do not want to contribute deserves equal treatment from the hands the feed them - what say you comrades?

**oneofsix** · 2nd July 2012, 08:33

Originally Posted by wharekura

Common sense at long last? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10816778
I don't mind giving a hand-up to those in need, but for those that do not want to contribute deserves equal treatment from the hands the feed them - what say you comrades?

Very appropriate. You will do what Uncle Stalin says or else. The other side of Nanny state. We politicians, our consultants and lawyers can be pissed as farts when ruining the country but god help you if you fail some dodgy drug test unprofessionally administered at the local fast food chain.

If you like your booze or tote and decide the forestry worker is not for you then you will also be punished on the presumption it is because you would fail the test.

More dealing with the symptoms of previous failed policies rather than address the problem. Of course you can't address the real issue, the IMF etc wouldn't like that.

**Akzle** · 2nd July 2012, 08:42

Originally Posted by wharekura

Common sense at long last? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10816778
I don't mind giving a hand-up to those in need, but for those that do not want to contribute deserves equal treatment from the hands the feed them - what say you comrades?

i have no objection to it, i also have no objection with "work for benefit" schemes, which i think would be more beneficial to the country (+cheaper to implement) than the increased spending that will be required for the drug-testing, with no nett flow-on financial benefit.

and what are they going to do if one passes a drug test with all the colors? will they cut off their benny? then what? they'll be insolvent, hooked on crack and looking for money.. they obviously can't or wont work so who will they look to to take money off?

i see this creating more problems than it is purported to solve. (whatever the perceived problem is....)

i also think all govt employees should be drug tested: politicians, ministry of justice staff, and policy enforcement staff.

but what about the beneficiaries who grow their own dope, who aren't spending "society's" hard-taxed dollars on buying the stuff....

**Paul in NZ** · 2nd July 2012, 09:00

Hmm - while I think this is at its core a good idea, its a bit tricky this one.

1st time I'd rather see a compulsory drug / alcohol / substance abuse course etc for a failed result. Just cutting the benefit will impact on any kids before a true addict stops drinking / drugging etc.

Effective welfare must have two thrusts. Support of innocent kids who are impacted by parents situation and scaffolding people currently in difficulty into self reliance. Often this is about building a good relationship with people to demonstrate decent behavior.

Cheers

**sidecar bob** · 2nd July 2012, 09:11

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Very appropriate. You will do what Uncle Stalin says or else. The other side of Nanny state. We politicians, our consultants and lawyers can be pissed as farts when ruining the country but god help you if you fail some dodgy drug test unprofessionally administered at the local fast food chain.

If you like your booze or tote and decide the forestry worker is not for you then you will also be punished on the presumption it is because you would fail the test.

More dealing with the symptoms of previous failed policies rather than address the problem. Of course you can't address the real issue, the IMF etc wouldn't like that.

A rant from the warped logic of a "mellow" pot smoker.

**Akzle** · 2nd July 2012, 09:15

Originally Posted by sidecar bob

A rant from the warped logic of a "mellow" pot smoker.

an unobjective, pointless retort from someone whose opinion apparently isn't worth putting words to.

**Buyasta** · 2nd July 2012, 09:21

They actually passed a similar law to this in Florida last year - anyone wanting to receive welfare had to pass a drug test... While they no longer had to pay benefits to the 2.6% who failed the test, they still had to pay for the drug testing, so the initiative ended up costing the taxpayer an extra $45,000 over the four months there is data for thus far.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-la...esting-welfare
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/flo...g-as-promised/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...-shows/1225721

Funnily enough, despite the rhetoric being that anyone who wanted to benefit from taxpayer funds must be shown to be free of drugs, when Rick Scott - the governor of Florida who spearheaded the move - was asked if he'd be willing to submit to a drug test, since he was the biggest beneficiary of taxpayer funds in Florida, he felt that if the law were applied to him, rather than just the poor folks, suddenly it was an absurd and insulting proposition.

**oneofsix** · 2nd July 2012, 09:24

Originally Posted by sidecar bob

A rant from the warped logic of a "mellow" pot smoker.

Never tried the stuff

I don't need drugs to get the munchies. I do find the history of making it illegal amusing and know it could assist some sick people but that's another thread ... or is it? What about the cancer patient on Chemo have a tote to restore hunger etc?
How about a wee dram instead?

**sidecar bob** · 2nd July 2012, 09:33

Originally Posted by Akzle

an unobjective, pointless retort from someone whose opinion apparently isn't worth putting words to.

Someone who thinks its cool to type in green.

**sidecar bob** · 2nd July 2012, 09:36

Originally Posted by Akzle

but what about the beneficiaries who grow their own dope, who aren't spending "society's" hard-taxed dollars on buying the stuff....

They will still remain angry losers with opinions from a universe where they all argue that black is actually white.
Oh sorry, did I forget to mention that I have had some pretty shit life expierences with pot smokers?

**Oscar** · 2nd July 2012, 09:44

Originally Posted by sidecar bob

They will still remain angry losers with opinions from a universe where they all argue that black is actually white.
Oh sorry, did I forget to mention that I have had some pretty shit life expierences with pot smokers?

+1

Especially "lifestyle" beneficiaries who grow dope to supplement the money obtained from the long suffering taxpayer.

**ducatilover** · 2nd July 2012, 10:00

Do it. Then we can have shoe shine kids in the streets, my boots all need polishing.

It's a good idea, to an extent.

But we aren't here for reasonable thoughts and logic so 'ere goes;

You pot smokers are all horrible stupid fuckwitts, you're going to get stoned and flip your car on to my one legged grandmother, then I will hunt you down and kill you, I will then become a hermit to evade teh po-po and all of this will happen because some fucking drop kick had a toke.

Revoke their breathing rights, I don't want to be a hermit.

**Akzle** · 2nd July 2012, 10:09

Originally Posted by sidecar bob

They will still remain angry losers with opinions from a universe where they all argue that black is actually white.
Oh sorry, did I forget to mention that I have had some pretty shit life expierences with pot smokers?

angry. dope smokers.
yah. right.
you didn't mention your shit life experiences, and that's unfortunate. but i've had some shit life experiences from cops, alcoholics, P addicts, aucklanders etc.

doesn't mean i'm going to taint all that i meet in future with the same brush. i'll take each as it comes.
in my experience dope smokers are intelligent, funny, caring, relaxed, open minded and have morals (different ones to you but moral none the less). everything from 60 sommat year old christian ladies to 17 year old athiest uni students, beneficiaries, retirees, farmers, corporate executives, hippies, fisherfolk, volunteer workers etc etc.

given that the govt is supposed to represent the will of the people, and some high percentage (no pun) repeatedly poll for decriminilisation at least... wtf are they wasting the time and money on enforcement for?