Australia proposes drugs tests for jobseekers

[Brian Peacock]

Boy George was imprisoned for 'past possession' after a newspaper sting.

Guess where he hides his gear now...

[Sean Hayden]

[pErvinalia]

I can't believe they let them keep some money for food, rent and childcare. Christ, here they'd act like by using drugs you've forfeited your right to life.

Yes we're very progressive here..

[laklak]

I never hire anyone who doesn't test positive for at least one felony level substance.

[Brian Peacock]

Now that's what I call an equal opportunity employer!

[rainbow]

Nanny-statism at its worst!

If they really cared about the poor they should hand out dope stamps that could be redeemed at the local clinic.

[mistermack]

Boy George was imprisoned for 'past possession' after a newspaper sting.

Guess where he hides his gear now...

That won't help him. The police know to look there.

Although, he might enjoy the search.

[Forty Two]

It's likely to be the same people who oppose all "handouts" in general. A way to get their foot in the door?

Probably so, but is there any reason to scare-quote the word "handout?" I mean, it is a handout. It's not like that's a misnomer or something.

I think they should skip the drug test and just have the card only purchase food/groceries, clothing, fuel/power, housing and other such necessaries. If they're spending money on entertainment, a holiday to Majorca, or a bottle of Chateau Thames Embankment, then there is some issue of whether they need the money.

The drug testing programs, though, tend to be expensive, at least when they've been tried in the US. What it most does is scare off people who will test positive from applying for the benefits. That might well be the goal, of course.

Anyway, I don't care if welfare recipients smoke weed. But, it doesn't really sound all that unreasonable that if a person is claiming poverty that they ought to take some responsibility and use the assistance they are being provided by a benevolent society wisely. I would think that's just politeness, and a modicum of gratitude.

An illustrative movie scene is from the movie Cinderalla Man, involving James J. Braddock, a boxer from the 1930s. He was raising a family in the Depression, and he was rather poor. He ended up having to go on the dole for a while. He took the money as a last resort, and then he kept track of every penny. When he got back on his feet and had the means, he ended up going back to the welfare office and returning everything he had previously received. It's a rather moving scene. He had an ethic that would not have allowed him to spend the money on beer. He spent the money on food and shelter for his family.

[Brian Peacock]

...
The drug testing programs, though, tend to be expensive, at least when they've been tried in the US. What it most does is scare off people who will test positive from applying for the benefits. That might well be the goal, of course.

Anyway, I don't care if welfare recipients smoke weed. But, it doesn't really sound all that unreasonable that if a person is claiming poverty that they ought to take some responsibility and use the assistance they are being provided by a benevolent society wisely. I would think that's just politeness, and a modicum of gratitude...

Who decides what's wise? And who decides who decides?

[Forty Two]

...
The drug testing programs, though, tend to be expensive, at least when they've been tried in the US. What it most does is scare off people who will test positive from applying for the benefits. That might well be the goal, of course.

Anyway, I don't care if welfare recipients smoke weed. But, it doesn't really sound all that unreasonable that if a person is claiming poverty that they ought to take some responsibility and use the assistance they are being provided by a benevolent society wisely. I would think that's just politeness, and a modicum of gratitude...

Who decides what's wise? And who decides who decides?

In a Democratic society, the people do, through their elected representatives.

I would think most people want to help other people with food, clothing, shelter, and basic necessities. However, porn, dope, and vacations are probably a bit lower on the lists of priorities. "Oh, you can't afford a vacation, cocaine and hookers? Let me get that for you..." The reason most people tend to rank those items lower on the list, is that the middle class tend to have such luxuries in somewhat short supply to begin with, because they, themselves, are tending to their necessities first.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed, if you can convince the voting public that the majority of benefit recipients are feckless freeloaders paid to be on holiday while they fritter their money away on lottery tickets, massive TVs and video games then great things can be achieved.

[mistermack]

Let's get it straight.

We don't pay people benefits because they need it. We pay them because they are a threat. If people can't get money, they will take it.
It's a good investment by those that have, to keep those that have not off the boil. It's far cheaper than a class war, and it makes us feel good about how "caring" we are.

If they spend it on weed, I think that's a good investment. It keeps them sedated.
Other stuff like the new designer drugs are not such a good investment.
They should make weed legal, and supply it free. It costs fuck-all to grow.

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, I don't care if welfare recipients smoke weed. But, it doesn't really sound all that unreasonable that if a person is claiming poverty that they ought to take some responsibility and use the assistance they are being provided by a benevolent society wisely. I would think that's just politeness, and a modicum of gratitude.

If people are using drugs instead of buying food, it's because they are addicted. Addiction is a social/medical problem. It can't be solved by essentially punitive measures.

An illustrative movie scene is from the movie Cinderalla Man, involving James J. Braddock, a boxer from the 1930s. He was raising a family in the Depression, and he was rather poor. He ended up having to go on the dole for a while. He took the money as a last resort, and then he kept track of every penny. When he got back on his feet and had the means, he ended up going back to the welfare office and returning everything he had previously received. It's a rather moving scene. He had an ethic that would not have allowed him to spend the money on beer. He spent the money on food and shelter for his family.

Meanwhile, back in the real world..

[pErvinalia]

Let's get it straight.

We don't pay people benefits because they need it. We pay them because they are a threat. If people can't get money, they will take it.
It's a good investment by those that have, to keep those that have not off the boil. It's far cheaper than a class war, and it makes us feel good about how "caring" we are.

If they spend it on weed, I think that's a good investment. It keeps them sedated.
Other stuff like the new designer drugs are not such a good investment.
They should make weed legal, and supply it free. It costs fuck-all to grow.

That's basically why alcohol is legal. How else would we get through all this shit without grog?

[Animavore]

A few years ago drug testers in the Dáil (Irish Parliment) found traces of cocaine in the toilets, so I would hope these rules apply to the people voting to pass it.

Also: it never ceases to amaze me how people who claim they support a smaller government with less interference and regulations for corporations are often for draconian rules and regulations for private citizens.