Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

Gee really?

Where have i said that. I have said you are ranting, then showed you, I don't recall saying unreasonable and unbalanced?
I have however said your replies smack of preconceived notions of what you think people are saying

You might have explain what this sentence is relating too....I have gone back in my posts i can find no mention of power trips?

No.

Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you

No. You said I had a preconceived notion. I asked for clarification and didn't see any... having said that, yes, I get the wrong end of the stick sometimes and rely on those who I have misread to tell me so. Some do, some prefer to roll their eyes.

check your previous post re: power trip.

[husaberg]

No.

Yes

No. You said I had a preconceived notion.

No i said "it was futile trying to have a balanced discussion with you" so none of the words are the same other than 'A"
But the preconcieved notions are in relation to the rants Or as you would say a free exchange of your ideas (in a rant) this was in reply to me saying that the the benefit was not for the purchase of drugs to which you started on

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone...
Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.
is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra

To which anyone who didn't know these are your forceful free exchange of ideas, not rants, and could therefor could confuse them as such.

I asked for clarification and didn't see any... having said that, yes, I get the wrong end of the stick sometimes and rely on those who I have misread to tell me so. Some do, some prefer to roll their eyes.

[QUOTE=mashman;1130393307 check your previous post re: power trip.[/QUOTE]

I guess we all do, yeah i found it in the end.

[mashman]

I guess we all do, yeah i found it in the end.

Noooooo... say it ain't so. Anyhoo, back on topic ... I be Hard Place, and as daft as it may seem to some there are some circumstances where

Yes

No i said "it was futile trying to have a balanced discussion with you" so none of the words are the same other than 'A"

post 605, 4th line from bottom: "a preconceived notion" (fucked up post responding post above the posted posted). Was the one I was referring to... and there was a reasonable before the balanced

[husaberg]

Noooooo... say it ain't so. Anyhoo, ..

and there was a reasonable before the balanced

Not in many of your posts


Btw Yes

[mashman]

Not in many of your posts


Btw Yes

heh heh heh... you hurt my feeling.

[husaberg]

heh heh heh... you hurt my feeling.

Who knew you only had one

[mashman]

Who knew you only had one

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?

[short-circuit]

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?

....or his kick them when they're down (despite the additional economic cost of doing so) attitude.

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 explanation from the economic imperativists about how this makes economic sense.

Not just fucking arseholes but idiots as well that can't see it's in noone's interests

[husaberg]

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?

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.

....or his kick them when they're down (despite the additional economic cost of doing so) attitude.

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.

Not just fucking arseholes but idiots as well that can't see it's in noone's interests

It not about kicking people when they are down.I don't believe the state has responsibility to support people who make a lifestlye choice, to take the money offered as support and spend it on drugs, rather than to help their situation.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you may think it does.
Because you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability.

[short-circuit]

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.




It not about kicking people when they are down.I don't believe the state has responsibility to support people who make a lifestlye choice, to take the money offered as support and spend it on drugs, rather than to help their situation.

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

[husaberg]

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?

[short-circuit]

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?

Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.

As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You have not addressed a fundamental point I made around the validity of the idea itself however, have another go:
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?

On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion. The two are not mutually exclusive. You have not become who you are today on your own despite what you might want to believe.

[husaberg]

Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.

As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You haven't you pulled some costs, added your own stats and came up with your own figure based on what you want the result to be.Back it up.
The economics of a policy will be judged by its effectiveness in the medium to long term, and whether it causes a change in societies attitude.
The fact it worries a small percent of the population, so much without any significant cost so far shows it can be quite effective.

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?

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.

On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion.

No it doesn't and no you haven't'


Responsible
1.Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically.
Parents are responsible for their child's behaviour.
2.Capable of responding to any reasonable claim; able to answer reasonably for one's conduct and obligations; capable of rational conduct.
3.Involving responsibility; involving a degree of personal accountability on the part of the person concerned.
She has a responsible position in the firm.
4.Being a primary cause or agent of some event or action; capable of being credited for something, or of being held liable for something.
Who is responsible for this mess?
5.Able to be trusted; reliable; trustworthy.
He looks like a responsible guy


As, i have yet to see any petitions, protests, public outcry or strongly worded letters of condemnation from the united Nations appalled at how unjust the policy is, or will be, i can only gather that there may not be a ground swell of support against the policy. If it is so unjust why is that?
You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own.

[Teflon]

Most drug users will know how to pass a simple drug test.. Thank you Switched on Gardener

[Madness]

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