Dole Drug Test?

SugarHigh

super_furry wrote: »

Can you imagine how many billions such a system would cost the state to implement and run?

Back this up please.

arybvtcw0eolkf

@ Iamxavier, jeeze calm down - you'll give yourself a heart attack taking that crap if it makes you that aggressive!.

Being in the Defence Forces has mean't I've been subject to random screening a long time, same as being a competitive Judo competitor and if that mean's I'm ignorant to using recreational drugs then so be it.

However having grown up in Ballymun, and mostly all of my family living there still, I'm hardly ignorant to the problems drug addiction brings to family and the wider community.

I'll be honest about something here, I detest drugs and I hate what drugs do to people - but my detest run's much, much deeper when I chance across middle class **** who feel isolated from the whole scene. They think its fashionable to do coke, or smoke smack or drop a few 'yokes in Krystal.

But if there's one thing which the old PD Justice minister Micheal McDowell said which I whole heartedly agree on is "for every line of coke bought in Foxrock someone gets shot in Coolock" (or words to that effect).

So anyway, calm down & grow up.

As for the discussion re. people on the dole ; do I honestly and truely believe they should be drug tested - no I don't and I've genuine sympathy for the people in this thread who find themselves unemployed - I couldn't imagine how depressing it must be.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sitec wrote: »

I used to be on my high horse thinking people who lost there jobs were just not trying hard enough to get a new. After being on the dole for a few months at the start of the year and after countless C.V's being sent and countless interviews i now understand how hard it is to get a job these days.
I also feel sorry for anyone on the dole now who is actively seeking work because there is NOTHING worse than waking up in the morning with nothing to do.

It's unfortunate that you lost your job, but at least you learnt what it's really like. Did you have a college or uni degree? Did you have much experience? I left college in 2008 with a degree to find no work. At first I started looking for what I was interested in, but after a few months I started looking for everything. Simply put, I am not good a job hunting, CV's, interview skills etc etc. Although that changed thankfully. Well at least now you realise and have an understanding as to what it is like...

Overheal wrote: »

Christ Iam

You make a good point about alcohol, but again I wanna get back to the fiscal bit - Alchohol is Taxed; Drugs are not. If Drugs were taxed, I doubt it would be an issue. Not one for me, anyway.

As for being employed by the state; youre not. But also see my post regarding rights and responsibilities. Gun laws in the US have responsibilities attached; as do the rights protecting Free Speech. Your right to the Dole though you as an individual will have contributed large sums should not be without responsibility.

Hmm, well taxing drugs is getting into another topic of conversation, but I understand what you are saying. It's the perception that drugs are bad based on their legal standing. Which is complete balls, as many illegal drugs are not even as bad as legal drugs.

I have a duty to myself, I know what to spend my money on per week in order to survive. I spend in a way that I can put aside money for luxeries, like that lemon cake slice I had today which cost me 2 quid. Not a lot, I know, but I don't spend my money stupidly and therefore I can afford more luxeries than other people. If that is beer, or weed or whatever, then what does it matter? Would people be happier if I spent my extra cash on more luxurious food? Or saved it for a new TV?

My name is URL wrote: »

I hear this a lot.. not sure it's actually the case though. I smoke the odd bit of weed and enjoy it. But I know people who have had real problems with it. Addiction is more about personality than anything else, it doesn't matter what it is that some people become somewhat dependent on.. the fact that they may be dependent upon something means that the prospect of them finding employment easily is lessened.

I do not believe that weed causes no effects or damage, short term or long term. I have looked into it a lot, as I am interested in it and there is a lot to be learned about the drug. I know stoners, but I do not know any addicts. I am not sure if I am allowed to say this here or not, but we do not smoke the conventional way, we use vaporisers, which is very benificial to many people with diseases and other illnesses.

And I know it's a minority, but that doesn't mean the issue isn't there. If someone knows that after 2 years of being reliant on state benefits, that they are required to abstain from drug use to prove that they are willing and capable of finding a job, and fail to abstain, then there may be a problem.. a problem that the current system ignores.

Thing is, not everyone that will have weed in their system will have taken the substance illegaly. I plan on going to holland in september for a few days, you can bet I will be inducing weed. Should I be penalised for this though?

I always had the opinion that if people do not want to work, and they want to depend entirely on the state, then they should be penalised.

starbelgrade

Annabella Little Sometimes wrote: »

@ Iamxavier, jeeze calm down - you'll give yourself a heart attack taking that crap if it makes you that aggressive!.

Everyone just share a nice big virtual doobie & all your problems will soon fade away.

Cheap Thrills!

SugarHigh wrote: »

If you have a problem with a law you protest against it you do not break that law to prove a point.

No.

I simply ignore laws that don't suit me. I'm not going to waste my time 'protesting' If a law is inconvenient or disagreeable to me I just ignore it and do what I prefer.

If you wan't to be a law abider then that's your business. Other people don't. I dont have any respect for mindless unquestioning obedience for laws. And the idea that 'weed must be illegal for a reason' ha ha ha funny.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Their are plenty of laws I don't liek it doesn't mean I should be allowed to break them.

None of us are 'allowed' break them. Some of us choose to. Fcuk the Nanny state. I have mind of my own.

Truley

starbelgrade wrote: »

No recession in your house! 55c for a double packet of Tesco value Burbon Creams in Tesco - they taste the exact same too. Nyum, Nyum!

I hope you're not eating them bikkies at the expense of the hard working taxpayer *shakes fist*

SugarHigh

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

No.

I simply ignore laws that don't suit me. I'm not going to waste my time 'protesting' If a law is inconvenient or disagreeable to me I just ignore it and do what I prefer.

If you wan't to be a law abider then that's your business. Other people don't. I dont have any respect for mindless unquestioning obedience for laws. And the idea that 'weed must be illegal for a reason' ha ha ha funny.



None of us are 'allowed' break them. Some of us choose to. Fcuk the Nanny state. I have mind of my own.

And people like you are the reason weed will never be legal. Where does the money you spend on drugs go?
Where do the drugs come from?

geeky

Overheal wrote: »

Your right to the Dole though you as an individual will have contributed large sums should not be without responsibility.

I want to take you up on this point. What responsibilities do you want to see applied? And do you think a person on the dole should have more responsibility to spend their money a certain way than people who are gainfully employed? If so, why?

Cheap Thrills!

SugarHigh wrote: »

And people like you are the reason weed will never be legal. Where does the money you spend on drugs go?
Where do the drugs come from?

I dont care.

starbelgrade

SugarHigh wrote: »

And people like you are the reason weed will never be legal. Where does the money you spend on drugs go?
Where do the drugs come from?

Most of the money spent on drugs goes to criminal gangs. Cannabis is imported mostly from Holland, then mixed with 95% other materials (anything from dog **** to car tyres), as is a lot of coke, heroin & pills, though they are mixed with other cheaper chemicals, often speed.

Pete M.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Most of the money spent on drugs goes to criminal gangs. Cannabis is imported mostly from Holland, then mixed with 95% other materials (anything from dog **** to car tyres), as is a lot of coke, heroin & pills, though they are mixed with other cheaper chemicals, often speed.

C'mon now! How you mix pills with dog poo?
You're getting carried away
This is very obviously a No answer innit?
I mean next thing we'll be talking about eugenics and stuff.
'He/she is a skanger, sterilise them...'
Bloke's got to have a right to smoke if that's what he (or she, but it's mostly hes here yeah?) wants to do.
Sure money goes to drug gang scumbags, but if it's in a bank then it goes to bank dealing scumbags, worse again as far as I'm concerned.
Society breeds all types of badness, smoking dope is surely one of the more minor types.
What bout old people? They're just a drain on the system too man:p
Maybe there should be a pee test for them too, them OAPs, if they wet themselves during a test period, no pension, contributary or not.

Rockn

Wow what a thread. I've no input on this other than to say that anyone who forwards those chain emails should be shot.

starbelgrade

Pete M. wrote: »

C'mon now! How you mix pills with dog poo?
You're getting carried away

I said that cannabis was mixed with dog poo. Pills, made from MDMA are cut with chemicals that are cheaper to produce - even heroin - as it is cheaper, hence the skaggy feeling that you get from a lot of pills which you don't get from pure MDMA.

You can mix pills with dog poo if you like, but it's a bit messy & smells bad.

Sharpshooter

helios12 wrote: »

Moderator AND a troll. Quite a few feathers in your cap;)

Watch it please.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Instead of money, the dole office should hand out food parcels and second hand clothes.

I see this as meaning, "Stop giving them money to buy drugs, give them food and clothing instead.

Magenta

fartmaster wrote: »

Dont blame me if I choose not to use drugs and have a problem with the idiots that do. Its a crime to use drugs and its a crime if your using the very limited TAXPAYERS money to buy more drugs. Frankly I have no time for drug users, your the reason criminals have BMWs and are shooting themselves left right and centre and your probualy the reason why YOU are on the dole.

For someone with such poor grammar and spelling, I find it very hard to believe you were able to string a coherent CV together and get yourself a job.

Magenta

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It's scary that a lot of other people have the notion that it's ok to deny people the right to put whatever the hell they like into their bodies so firmly ingrained in their way of thinking.

He/she will understand when he/she finishes college and has to actually go out and get a job rather than living off Mammy and Daddy.

Pete M.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I said that cannabis was mixed with dog poo. Pills, made from MDMA are cut with chemicals that are cheaper to produce - even heroin - as it is cheaper, hence the skaggy feeling that you get from a lot of pills which you don't get from pure MDMA.

You can mix pills with dog poo if you like, but it's a bit messy & smells bad.

What skaggy feeling? Don't know what you're talking about

And there ain't no thing as good sh1t I suppose, not any more, god be with the daze hah?

And I would also like to say that I, as a tax payer, have no problem with those who obtain state benefits out of necessity, smoking the ganj.
Much as I don't have a problem with them drinking, laughing, minding their own business.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SugarHigh wrote: »

You seem to think that just because you don't think these drugs should be illegal that it is somehow ok to take them. If you have a problem with a law you protest against it you do not break that law to prove a point. Their are plenty of laws I don't liek it doesn't mean I should be allowed to break them.

No no no, all wrong, I think it's ok to take certain drugs because I done my homework on them, there's a reason why I don't drink much, there's a reason I don't smoke nicotene, and there's a reason I don't drink caffene.

I also do not break a law to prove a point, I am a law abiding citizen for the best part. I do ingest marijuana from time to time, but even the state doesn't consider this to be very bad.

Annabella Little Sometimes wrote: »

@ Iamxavier, jeeze calm down - you'll give yourself a heart attack taking that crap if it makes you that aggressive!.

I don't think anything I take is going to give me a heart attack , nor does anything I take make me aggressive. I am aggressive by nature

Being in the Defence Forces has mean't I've been subject to random screening a long time, same as being a competitive Judo competitor and if that mean's I'm ignorant to using recreational drugs then so be it.

I simply ask you to understand the drugs better before passing judgement. I had a similar mentality prior to my understanding of drugs and the effects they have on your body.

However having grown up in Ballymun, and mostly all of my family living there still, I'm hardly ignorant to the problems drug addiction brings to family and the wider community.

I wouldn't claim that you are ignorant of the problems drugs cause, but you do display a lack of understanding of certain drugs, sorry to say. There are also different types of drugs, some bring a lot of problems, some don't bring many at all. I see legal drugs bringing a lot more problems to the home than illegal drugs.

I'll be honest about something here, I detest drugs and I hate what drugs do to people - but my detest run's much, much deeper when I chance across middle class **** who feel isolated from the whole scene. They think its fashionable to do coke, or smoke smack or drop a few 'yokes in Krystal.

I think you have a perception that only a certain type of person takes drugs. If I am understanding this correctly. But what if an upper class or lower class citizen were to take drugs, do you have the same ideas? I think the main topic of conversation is weed, I don't think anybody is arguing for coke or smack. You will find that weed is a completely different drug to the likes of cocaine and heroin. Same can be said for MDMA, it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Saying that, I wouldn't try any of them as I am not interested and I understand that they are harmful (moreso because they are illegal and there is no regulation involved)

But if there's one thing which the old PD Justice minister Micheal McDowell said which I whole heartedly agree on is "for every line of coke bought in Foxrock someone gets shot in Coolock" (or words to that effect).

You agree with this? In what sense?

So anyway, calm down & grow up.

As for the discussion re. people on the dole ; do I honestly and truely believe they should be drug tested - no I don't and I've genuine sympathy for the people in this thread who find themselves unemployed - I couldn't imagine how depressing it must be.

I thought you were all for drug testing people on social welfare? Now i'm confused...

SugarHigh wrote: »

And people like you are the reason weed will never be legal. Where does the money you spend on drugs go?
Where do the drugs come from?

And what are people like him like exactly???

starbelgrade wrote: »

Most of the money spent on drugs goes to criminal gangs. Cannabis is imported mostly from Holland, then mixed with 95% other materials (anything from dog **** to car tyres), as is a lot of coke, heroin & pills, though they are mixed with other cheaper chemicals, often speed.

I don't know where you get this from. Do you have any links to back up your claims? I don't think they are true, sorry to say. Not sure if it's imported mostly from holland either. I also seriously doubt it's mixed with dog poo.

Either way, a LOT of weed is grown in Ireland, believe it or not. Many people have turned to growing their own, as it's not exactly difficult to do, albeit very risky. Not as much money is going to the gangs as you think it is.

Magenta wrote: »

For someone with such poor grammar and spelling, I find it very hard to believe you were able to string a coherent CV together and get yourself a job.

Jesus, fcuking christ... lol... Now that was harsh.

helios12

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Watch it please.



I see this as meaning, "Stop giving them money to buy drugs, give them food and clothing instead.

Well if it was worded a little more carefully I may not have viewed it as a troll post.Of course, at this point I'm basing that solely on the belief that the poster meant it exactly how you have just interpreted it.

Overheal

geeky wrote: »

I want to take you up on this point. What responsibilities do you want to see applied? And do you think a person on the dole should have more responsibility to spend their money a certain way than people who are gainfully employed? If so, why?

I dont think that starting with making sure Dolers aren't bleeding money out into the black market would be that absurd.

On a more existential level you have a responsibility to contribute to society; as Society has Contributed to You.

helios12

I don't suppose anyone would consider legalizing and taxing cannabis?

I don't smoke myself but I'd like to see the extra revenue hit the coffers and less people pissed trying to knock each others heads in on the weekends would be nice.


(plus I'd rather not hear about people I know who have fallen on hard times having their dignity taken away also)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I meant to post this earlier, it shocked me when I first seen it too, although I knew where marijuana was on the list or there abouts.

Linky

geeky

Overheal wrote: »

I dont think that starting with making sure Dolers aren't bleeding money out into the black market would be that absurd.

On a more existential level you have a responsibility to contribute to society; as Society has Contributed to You.

But should 'Dolers' come under more scrutiny than... non-dolers? And why?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

geeky wrote: »

But should 'Dolers' come under more scrutiny than... non-dolers? And why?

I understand what Overheal is saying and as we are dependant on the state, we should spend our money wisely. While many of us worked for it, others have not. It's very fair to say that with the money you have, you should at the very least, pay for shelter, food and water, after than it's up to you. Which is what I am trying to say. If I decide to spend my money wisely, cut down on bills, food, expenses in general, then with that extra money I should be able to buy my booze or weed or whatever I decide to indulge in as I have budgeted my money accordingly. Now, I could not do that and I could buy nicer food, better accomodation, etc etc. You know?

mardybumbum

Its a fairly stupid idea.
If someone on the dole wants to smoke weed than good for them.
Its no ones business what they spend their money on. Although I must admit, if I was only taking in 200 euro a week, weed would be one of the last things on my mind.

However, I do think they should have to prove that they are looking for jobs.

bigbadbear

All i know is that in the future I'll look back on this and any other thread that has mentioned the dole since 2008 and I'm going to be in awe of the sour selfish attitudes of the people of Ireland.

People are being so moany and holier than thou when it comes to dole recipients but the fact is that when the recession goes away all the "lazy job-hating bums" (like myself) will have jobs and all of the sour begrudging bástards will not give a hooley about who is claiming the dole. Social welfare is there because as a society we agreed to pay taxes so that the most unfortunate get helped out when the economy goes barmy or the luck is against us. OK There ARE people who abuse it and there ARE people who get more than they deserve (check my previous posts) but will PEOPLE EVER STOP GENERALISING ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE DOLE!!!

As so many have said before. Just live on the dole and see if it is in any way luxurious. you will soon realise that dole luxuries are BS for 99.999% of people.

If you idolise or envy some fool who is happy on the dole for 5 years then join him. its not a members only club. Seriously. If there are people who are happy on the dole there is something wrong with the system. if the systems fine then I say just quit your job and see how great it is. please!

starbelgrade

bigbadbear wrote: »

All i know is that in the future I'll look back on this and any other thread that has mentioned the dole since 2008 and I'm going to be in awe of the sour selfish attitudes of the people of Ireland.

People are being so moany and holier than thou when it comes to dole recipients but the fact is that when the recession goes away all the "lazy job-hating bums" (like myself) will have jobs and all of the sour begrudging bástards will not give a hooley about who is claiming the dole. Social welfare is there because as a society we agreed to pay taxes so that the most unfortunate get helped out when the economy goes barmy or the luck is against us. OK There ARE people who abuse it and there ARE people who get more than they deserve (check my previous posts) but will PEOPLE EVER STOP GENERALISING ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE DOLE!!!

As so many have said before. Just live on the dole and see if it is in any way luxurious. you will soon realise that dole luxuries are BS for 99.999% of people.

If you idolise or envy some fool who is happy on the dole for 5 years then join him. its not a members only club. Seriously. If there are people who are happy on the dole there is something wrong with the system. if the systems fine then I say just quit your job and see how great it is. please!

Hmm.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bigbadbear wrote: »

All i know is that in the future I'll look back on this and any other thread that has mentioned the dole since 2008 and I'm going to be in awe of the sour selfish attitudes of the people of Ireland.

People are being so moany and holier than thou when it comes to dole recipients but the fact is that when the recession goes away all the "lazy job-hating bums" (like myself) will have jobs and all of the sour begrudging bástards will not give a hooley about who is claiming the dole. Social welfare is there because as a society we agreed to pay taxes so that the most unfortunate get helped out when the economy goes barmy or the luck is against us. OK There ARE people who abuse it and there ARE people who get more than they deserve (check my previous posts) but will PEOPLE EVER STOP GENERALISING ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE DOLE!!!

As so many have said before. Just live on the dole and see if it is in any way luxurious. you will soon realise that dole luxuries are BS for 99.999% of people.

If you idolise or envy some fool who is happy on the dole for 5 years then join him. its not a members only club. Seriously. If there are people who are happy on the dole there is something wrong with the system. if the systems fine then I say just quit your job and see how great it is. please!

You are allowed happiness on social welfare though. To be happy you are on social welfare is another thing. I was the happies in my life that I can remember only a few weeks ago, when I was chatting to some poor bastard outside Ron Blacks the night we had AH beers, he was looking for a few euro, I gave him a few smokes. Imagine, me, on social welfare, in a position to help another human being in a time of need, who had a lot less than me by the looks of things.

I mean, things are not great, much prefer to be on a min wage job, but for me at least, things could be a lot lot worse.

bigbadbear

starbelgrade wrote: »

Hmm.

well sell it to me then whats the good points about it?? seriously. being able to afford a few pints at the weekend is not exactly motivation to stay on the dole is it?

Talia Brave Tonsillitis wrote: »

I mean, things are not great, much prefer to be on a min wage job, but for me at least, things could be a lot lot worse.

spot on. glad its there and wouldn't die if there was a minor cut to the dole or anything but its still not my preferred choice

pwd

Well done; you came up with an "are you a complete fucking fucktard" poll... Apparently 42.39% of users are.

mardybumbum

pwd wrote: »

Well done; you came up with an "are you a complete fucking fucktard" poll... Apparently 42.39% of users are.

49% if you count the atari option.

starbelgrade

bigbadbear wrote: »

well sell it to me then whats the good points about it?? seriously. being able to afford a few pints at the weekend is not exactly motivation to stay on the dole is it?



spot on. glad its there and wouldn't die if there was a minor cut to the dole or anything but its still not my preferred choice

You missed the point. You complain about people making generalisations is one sentence, then made a sweeping a generalisation in the next.

Overheal

pwd wrote: »

Well done; you came up with an "are you a complete fucking fucktard" poll... Apparently 42.39% of users are.

Yes because rather than address the view, and debate like an adult, insulting other members of this site with a view that varies from yours is the way forward.

Riiiight. Here's a facepalm :rolleyes: take it to the bank.

bigbadbear

starbelgrade wrote: »

You missed the point. You complain about people making generalisations is one sentence, then made a sweeping a generalisation in the next.

How??

If your trying to imply that some people would physically die if they had a small cut to the dole then i'm open to new the info..

starbelgrade

will PEOPLE EVER STOP GENERALISING ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE DOLE!!!

As so many have said before. Just live on the dole and see if it is in any way luxurious. you will soon realise that dole luxuries are BS for 99.999% of people

.

I take it then that the figure of 99.999% of people is indeed a sourced figure & not just a generalisation as to what they actually spend their money on?

Super-Rush

pwd wrote: »

Well done; you came up with an "are you a complete fucking fucktard" poll... Apparently 42.39% of users are.

Argue your point without insulting people. Please.

bigbadbear

starbelgrade wrote: »

.

I take it then that the figure of 99.999% of people is indeed a sourced figure & not just a generalisation as to what they actually spend their money on?

grow up if i had said 96% then i would know you were serious but OK you are right there may be more than 1 person in every 100,000 people that may have luxuries on the dole. well done for pointing out that i was exaggerating.

i was not generalising about people. Are you or have you ever been on the dole?

pwd

Overheal wrote: »

Yes because rather than address the view, and debate like an adult, insulting other members of this site with a view that varies from yours is the way forward.

Riiiight. Here's a facepalm :rolleyes: take it to the bank.

You failed the fucktard test didn't you.

"I live on a big platform in the sea in an almost-exclusively male environment, for months at a time. I do hard physical work, in harsh living conditions. As such, it offers a lot more money than most options I have as an unskilled worker. In order to help maintain order in such an intense environment, drugs and alcohol are strictly banned, and they do random tests to enforce this. I'm happy to go along with this, as it's part and parcel of my choice of work.
"However, I'm a bit of a prick, and I like to look down on people the odd time I can. I think people on the dole should *have* to be subjected to random drugs tests, because I choose to be subjected to random drugs tests, and I am superior to those fuckers on the dole because I work. I don't give a fuck about the fact this would be expensive to impement on such a large scale. I quite like the fact that it would further humiliate people who are embarrassed or frustrated at being out of work. I'm oblivious to the fact that this is a completely different context, and the reasons for the random tests I undergo are not present. Neither do I care that cutting off dole for drug-users won't magically find them gainful employment, nor will it solve any social problems whatsoever. This is completely irrelevant - I want them to be humiliated because they are scum and I am superior.
Sincerely,
Complete Fucking Fucktard."

Iron Hide

OP, grow up! At the moment i'm currently on unemployment benefit, so i'm sorry if i'm draining your pocket. I'd like to think of it from the other side, if people didnt pay their taxes etc.. i would probably not recieve money every week, money which i depend on, money which half a million other people depend on to put food on the table and pay the bills. So i think a thank you is in order! Thanks to everyone who isnt a bigoted, snobbish prat that understands the position that a hefty portion of the 500,000 unemployed in this country are in!

generalmiaow

Here's a facebook group using the same copypasta as the OP's chainmail. If you actually believe this please join it because I'd love to see if there's anyone savvy enough to be on this website who seriously believes this. Obviously this is nonsense anyway since showing up positive on a piss test doesn't prove anything about how you spend your money since most recreational drugs cannot be tested for this way.

The results of this poll make me glad we don't live in a direct democracy. Can I ask some of the ~40% who voted yes on this how you would pay for 4 million drug tests a year with no benefits apart from smugness - or at least outline some economical way of to satisfy your craving for casting judgement on how welfare recipients spend their money?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

generalmiaow wrote: »

Here's a facebook group using the same copypasta as the OP's chainmail. If you actually believe this please join it because I'd love to see if there's anyone savvy enough to be on this website who seriously believes this. Obviously this is nonsense anyway since showing up positive on a piss test doesn't prove anything about how you spend your money since most recreational drugs cannot be tested for this way.

The results of this poll make me glad we don't live in a direct democracy. Can I ask some of the ~40% who voted yes on this how you would pay for 4 million drug tests a year with no benefits apart from smugness - or at least outline some economical way of to satisfy your craving for casting judgement on how welfare recipients spend their money?

If there was ever a reason for compulsorary steralisation, this is it.... Do not polute the gene pool with your stupidity David... good lad

Snowie

pwd wrote: »

You failed the fucktard test didn't you.

"I live on a big platform in the sea in an almost-exclusively male environment, for months at a time. I do hard physical work, in harsh living conditions. As such, it offers a lot more money than most options I have as an unskilled worker. In order to help maintain order in such an intense environment, drugs and alcohol are strictly banned, and they do random tests to enforce this. I'm happy to go along with this, as it's part and parcel of my choice of work.
"However, I'm a bit of a prick, and I like to look down on people the odd time I can. I think people on the dole should *have* to be subjected to random drugs tests, because I choose to be subjected to random drugs tests, and I am superior to those fuckers on the dole because I work. I don't give a fuck about the fact this would be expensive to impement on such a large scale. I quite like the fact that it would further humiliate people who are embarrassed or frustrated at being out of work. I'm oblivious to the fact that this is a completely different context, and the reasons for the random tests I undergo are not present. Neither do I care that cutting off dole for drug-users won't magically find them gainful employment, nor will it solve any social problems whatsoever. This is completely irrelevant - I want them to be humiliated because they are scum and I am superior.
Sincerely,
Complete Fucking Fucktard."

Ha.

Your funny.

Oh and when they run out of oil where will you be hmmmm On the dole cue like every other rigger in the world

Overheal

generalmiaow wrote: »

Here's a facebook group using the same copypasta as the OP's chainmail. If you actually believe this please join it because I'd love to see if there's anyone savvy enough to be on this website who seriously believes this. Obviously this is nonsense anyway since showing up positive on a piss test doesn't prove anything about how you spend your money since most recreational drugs cannot be tested for this way.

The results of this poll make me glad we don't live in a direct democracy. Can I ask some of the ~40% who voted yes on this how you would pay for 4 million drug tests a year with no benefits apart from smugness - or at least outline some economical way of to satisfy your craving for casting judgement on how welfare recipients spend their money?

4 Million on the Dole?

Secondly you don't have to screen everyone; thats the point of random screening. You dont even need a number of tests approaching near the arbitrary figure supplied.

Third it could be blood. It doesnt have to happen at the dole office; it could happen at the Doctor's, with results added on file if and only if the person tests positive for illegal substances, and only that information need be stored.

generalmiaow

Overheal wrote: »

4 Million on the Dole?

Secondly you don't have to screen everyone; thats the point of random screening. You dont even need a number of tests approaching near the arbitrary figure supplied.

Third it could be blood. It doesnt have to happen at the dole office; it could happen at the Doctor's, with results added on file if and only if the person tests positive for illegal substances, and only that information need be stored.

I multiplied 4 hundred thousand by the number of months in a year, assuming we were testing only for cannabis, THC the only drug that spends enough time dissolved in fat to last a month. My hidden point is that you would need continuous testing (a lá on opiate rehab programs) for it to be any sort of deterrent, otherwise distilling it to randomised testing would be no more effective as an enforcement than law enforcement already is, and thus no more economical.

Apart from it being a disgusting and un-necessary invasion of bodily privacy.

Edit: Blood testing is less effective than urine testing since the body eliminates drugs from the blood before the urine.

Overheal

Fair enough.

What about screening only those with known drug disorders? For instance, those fired from work for drug use, etc. - whats done about them?

generalmiaow

Overheal wrote: »

Fair enough.

What about screening only those with known drug disorders? For instance, those fired from work for drug use, etc. - whats done about them?

They wouldn't qualify for Jobseeker's benefit if they were fired (I think ) and the only relevant jobseeker's allowance criterium is the actively-seeking-work one; (of course the premise of the thread is a change in this system) I would hope the DSFA would notice a harmful drug or alcohol habit or other disease in the supposedly regular interviews the offices do, though from what I can tell the departments are so understaffed they can't even schedule those interviews.

Personally I would love to live in the sort of paradise where this kind of close attention to the health of job seekers was paid - without taking liberties - it would strengthen people's ability to return to the workforce.

Though at the moment they don't seem to care if you are mentally ill or have cancer so I don't see costly addictions - and I don't mean spending 20 quid a week on buying a bag of weed, but stuff like heroin, cocaine, gambling, tesco value whiskey or prostitutes - ranking too highly compared to fraudulent claims of a more obvious sort like flying out to live in europe every month.

Overheal

Hmm. Good points, which ill sleep on.

Thanks miaow for the adult discussion

arybvtcw0eolkf

Talia Brave Tonsillitis wrote: »

I am aggressive by nature

I cure young lads of that all the time

Rabies

pwd banned.

Previously warned

Morpheus

How about...

All those in full time employment and those in unemployment benefit should suffer random drug tests. I think that selecting to target those of us unfortunate enough to be unemployed was quite shortsighted and insulting by the OP. I have been on the dole a few times, hey its life, youve a job one day the next your trying to fill in a massive amount of paperwork, feeling guilty because youve just been "let go due to unforseen economic circumcision!!!" ouch...

Back to drug tests, nationwide non discriminatory is the only way to go if we wander down this road. By their very nature random means random, it doesnt mean that every person (of the 450,000 unemployed and 1000,000 plus employed) are drug tested annually!!! instead a random small sample of people are drug tested at random times through the course of the working year. While were at it, include those on state pensions, nobody should be above the law. Also prisoners with statutory sentence increases for failing these tests.

They work by the THREAT that you too could suffer a test at any time, not that you are frogmarched en masse to a clinic once a year to be tested communist style!!!! With the knowledge that you COULD lose everything hanging over your head you would certainly think twice before you used that €100 note to sniff a line off your favorite strippers stomach (yes i go to classy places).

Back to reality, we should be very clear about WHY we want to introduce this, it should NOT be because joe shmo is suspected of being a layabout pot head on the dole ala Pineapple Express but because we want to eradicate the use of drugs and the completely related social, criminal, violent, health, mental and downright terrorist (in some cases) issues right across society.

It would go a long way to stamping out the widespread use of drugs in ALL classes of society in ALL levels of employment.

I WOULD support that.

Plus it would CREATE drugs for people in a new national drug screening task force.