Dole Drug Test?

ChewChew

fartmaster wrote: »

no the juvenile thing here is that he uses drugs to make himself feel better, it not like a doctor prescribed it for him or he 'actually needs to use drugs'. therefore in my opinion he is wasting the money, wasting Taxpayers money, wasting it on something he doesnt need and someone else with a brain would use it for a much better purpose.

the point you are very obviously missing is the fact that he was a tax payer up until quite recently. it is not your money he is wasting. thats like say to me if I was on the dole... ''you bought that dress and those shoes out of your dole money and look at them... tags still on... never been worn.. what a waste of taxpayers money'' :rolleyes:

evercloserunion

fartmaster wrote: »

thats some great logic there. how about instead of tightening up their belts they cop the fook on and stop messing with their own heads and wasting their money on pointless substances, and stop funding the criminals!! Only a person NOT on drugs seems to get the point im making here, which is understandable i guess as only sane people dont use drugs

I don't use drugs and I think you're talking out of your hole.

ChewChew

SugarHigh wrote: »

Your living in dream-world if you think the government can pay 400,000 people enough money to go shopping in dundrum once a week.

The state is short of money so why should it be spending money it doesn't have to supply people with illegal drugs?

are you actually for real? there's a pennies in Dundrum!! jees!!

The state is short of a lot of things. money is not their biggest issue I can assure you.

Pace2008

fartmaster wrote: »

Only a person NOT on drugs seems to get the point im making here, which is understandable i guess as only sane people dont use drugs

I don't think anyone here, on drugs or not, really knows what you're on about at all.

SugarHigh

geeky wrote: »

Leaving aside estimates of how much it will 'bring in' (I'd fancy a guess that we'd spend as much testing people as we'd save on dole payments, but we'll leave that for a while), there are two points I made earlier in the thread that make this impractical.

Firstly, resourceful types can obtain clean urine.
Secondly, and more importantly, when we cut these people off the dole, are they going to live on fresh, drug-free air? Or the kindness of strangers? Well,they might start begging, or just starve. Or maybe (shock horror) they might turn... to crime!

I'm opposed to this on moral grounds but, even leaving this aside, the idea is batty.

From my point of view the point of this would be too save money so if it turned out that it would cost more money than it would save I would obviously not be in favour of it, however neither you or I have enough knowledge to decide whether it would be practical financially.

I have also said I would be in favour of a reduction to someone's dole and not a total cut off simply because if they can afford drugs then they are getting more than is required. There are people with families struggling to get by on the dole so why should other people have enough money to waste that they can afford drug use?

DarkJager

This is like trying to argue with 2 ignorant deaf zombies.

ChewChew

DarkJager wrote: »

This is like trying to argue with 2 ignorant deaf zombies.

yeah but those 2 Zombies are always right!! :rolleyes:

DarkJager

Bagel Girl wrote: »

yeah but those 2 Zombies are always right!! :rolleyes:

In their own minds!:D

ChewChew

DarkJager wrote: »

In their own minds!:D

or is it in our minds?? :eek:

SugarHigh

geeky wrote: »

I've a question for Fartmaster and Sugarhigh: do you think a person who is on the dole has less right to the money they receive than someone who's employed?

Are you going to resort to loaded questions to back up your point?

A person on the dole has the right to spend their money how they wish as long as it is legal. They should be supplied with enough money to survive on but not to so much that they can buy illegal drugs. If instead of buying basic necessities like food clothes and shelter they waste it on something like drugs then the state has every right to give them less money.

Why should the state fund something it does not condone?

You do not have a right to illegal drugs and the state has no obligation to supply you with the means to buy them it does however have an obligation to supply you with funds to meet your basic human rights.

geeky

SugarHigh wrote: »

Are you going to resort to loaded questions to back up your point?

I'm actually trying to see where you're coming from. BTW, you haven't addressed the practical problems with the proposal that I mentioned earlier.

SugarHigh wrote: »

A person on the dole has the right to spend their money how they wish as long as it is legal. They should be supplied with enough money to survive on but not to so much that they can buy illegal drugs. If instead of buying basic necessities like food clothes and shelter they waste it on something like drugs then the state has every right to give them less money.

Why should the state fund something it does not condone?

You do not have a right to illegal drugs and the state has no obligation to supply you with the means to buy them it does however have an obligation to supply you with funds to meet your basic human rights.

Ok, so people on the dole don't have less right to their money than people who work. And you're in favour of testing people on the dole for drugs. Then why not test everybody in your worldview?

Truley

I propose having state-funded inspectors to go around to welfare receipients' homes ensuring my hard earned tax money is not being wasted on burbon creams. Think about it, burbon creams are a privilege not a right. They are also harmful for your health. If you can afford to spend your money on such extravagence as luxury biscuits then you are getting too much money imo.

arybvtcw0eolkf

SugarHigh wrote: »

You do not have a right to illegal drugs and the state has no obligation to supply you with the means to buy them it does however have an obligation to supply you with funds to meet your basic human rights.

Not only do these people feel its their right for us (the tax payer) to fund their habit, but when they're caught they then get a more lenient fine because of their unemployed status!...

Check post No#27.

Seem's like a sweet deal for the unemployed stoner!.

The more I think about this the more I'm in agreement that people claiming Job Seekers Allowance should be subjected to random drug testing.

How can you be available (and reliable to an employer) for work if you've an addiction to illegal drugs?.

DarkJager

SugarHigh wrote: »

Are you going to resort to loaded questions to back up your point?

A person on the dole has the right to spend their money how they wish as long as it is legal. They should be supplied with enough money to survive on but not to so much that they can buy illegal drugs. If instead of buying basic necessities like food clothes and shelter they waste it on something like drugs then the state has every right to give them less money.

Bit of a contradiciton don't you think? They can spend it however they want, regardless of whether its legal or not - thats their choice, not yours, not the governments. The government has no need to take a survey of what people are spending dole money on as you seem to be the only one so concerned with what other people are doing with their money.

Why should the state fund something it does not condone?

You do not have a right to illegal drugs and the state has no obligation to supply you with the means to buy them it does however have an obligation to supply you with funds to meet your basic human rights.

Once again, you are going around in circles with your questions while the answer has been given to you numerous times already. The State is not funding anyone unless they have not worked. Do you grasp that? People that have worked and are now on dole, are claiming money they are fully entitled to after paying taxes. They are also entitled to spend that money how they want - BECAUSE ITS THEIR MONEY!!! Please let that sink in for a minute.

I have a right to buy whatever I want with my own money. My money, not yours or anyone elses. Therefore, you or anybody else have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. Do you understand that? Do you see how ridiculous your whole point is?

Herbal Deity

Annabella Little Sometimes wrote: »

Not only do these people feel its their right for us (the tax payer) to fund their habit, but when they're caught they then get a more lenient fine because of their unemployed status!...

Check post No#27.

Seem's like a sweet deal for the unemployed stoner!.

The more I think about this the more I'm in agreement that people claiming Job Seekers Allowance should be subjected to random drug testing.

How can you be available (and reliable to an employer) for work if you've an addiction to illegal drugs?.

Sweet jesus.

Since when does drug use = drug addiction?

helios12

Annabella Little Sometimes wrote: »

How can you be available (and reliable to an employer) for work if you've an addiction to illegal drugs?.

Why stop there? Let us introduce mandatory drug testing for all those, both employed and unemployed, of working age.

Seriously, pull your head out of your arse. You will happily endorse the erosion of civil liberties for others but will probably be the first in line to whine when it eventually hits you.

arybvtcw0eolkf

helios12 wrote: »

Why stop there? Let us introduce mandatory drug testing for all those, both employed and unemployed, of working age..

Member's of the Defence Forces are subject to random drug testing, not sure about the Guards.

Since the state/tax paer are paying the wages of the public and civil service I'd have absolutely no problem with all government employee's being subject to drug testing, so it follows that the does receiving Job Seekers Allowance from the same people should also be subject to the same tests.

SugarHigh

Truley wrote: »

I propose having state-funded inspectors to go around to welfare receipients' homes ensuring my hard earned tax money is not being wasted on burbon creams. Think about it, burbon creams are a privilege not a right. They are also harmful for your health. If you can afford to spend your money on such extravagence as luxury biscuits then you are getting too much money imo.

Are burbon creams illegal.

I can't believe the sense of entitlement to illegal drugs some people have.

SugarHigh

DarkJager wrote: »

Bit of a contradiciton don't you think? They can spend it however they want, regardless of whether its legal or not - thats their choice, not yours, not the governments. The government has no need to take a survey of what people are spending dole money on as you seem to be the only one so concerned with what other people are doing with their money.




Once again, you are going around in circles with your questions while the answer has been given to you numerous times already. The State is not funding anyone unless they have not worked. Do you grasp that? People that have worked and are now on dole, are claiming money they are fully entitled to after paying taxes. They are also entitled to spend that money how they want - BECAUSE ITS THEIR MONEY!!! Please let that sink in for a minute.

I have a right to buy whatever I want with my own money. My money, not yours or anyone elses. Therefore, you or anybody else have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. Do you understand that? Do you see how ridiculous your whole point is?

"They can spend it however they want, regardless of whether its legal or not "
So people are allowed to purchase illegal drugs then??

So how are they illegal.:D

DarkJager

SugarHigh wrote:

So people are allowed to purchase illegal drugs then??

So how are they illegal.:D

Yes they are. You're really giving me a headache now.

Overheal

Obviously a lot of Dole Queue rage in this thread.

I don't think for example, cannabinoids necessarily impact on someones ability to work. If youve been laid off for good reasons (overheads, etc. but otherwise exceptional employee), this seems pointless.

I can see needing to have higher standards for people who have been fired specifically for drug abuse; and for jobseekers who have never held a job. Because if you got fired from doing drugs, or have never worked, and are blowing your income on drugs, why should the state pay to support you? It shouldn't.

Also to Mr. Incognito at the front page: thats what Random Screening is about. You don't need to piss test every tom dick and harry in the line. Besides, drugs stay in your system for weeks; it would be absurd to be tested every week; or to test every person. Hence spot screening would be a viable approach if it saves the taxpayer at the end of the day perhaps millions of euro that are being spent on drug abuse.

Think about it this way: an employer can dictate that you take random drug tests as part of your employment; why can't the state make the same stipulation of the Dole?

helios12

Annabella Little Sometimes wrote: »

I'd have absolutely no problem with all government employee's being subject to drug testing, so it follows that the does receiving Job Seekers Allowance from the same people should also be subject to the same tests.

Students in receipt of grants? old age pensioners? employees of the banks currently being bailed out by the Irish tax payer?


Maybe put some sort of monitoring device on job seekers to be sure they are actively looking for work?

I'm fascinated to understand the country I'd be living in if you had your way.

Princess Zelda

To be honest, I think if they were gonna spend money on something like this, it would be more useful to spend money giving people financial rewards for shopping people fraudulently on the dole i.e. working and claiming the dole. I would rather my money went to someone who was smoking a few joints a week and actively looking for work than somebody who was working and claiming taxpayers money.

evercloserunion

Truley wrote: »

I propose having state-funded inspectors to go around to welfare receipients' homes ensuring my hard earned tax money is not being wasted on burbon creams. Think about it, burbon creams are a privilege not a right. They are also harmful for your health. If you can afford to spend your money on such extravagence as luxury biscuits then you are getting too much money imo.

Come on man, 99c for a pack in Spar, and they're soo good.

Actually why are they called bourbon creams? I always thought they were chocolate flavoured no?

Apprently, named after the French House of Bourbon.

Cheap Thrills!

So what if people on the dole use drugs? Good luck to them!!! If it p!sses off prohibitionists EVEN BETTER!!!

Nice to know my taxes are getting spent on SOMETHING worthwhile instead of clapped out banks!

As for drug testing? Never.

Horse_box

If someone who works for years and pay's taxes suddelny gets let go they are entitled to do whatever the **** they want with their dole money

Overheal

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

So what if people on the dole use drugs? Good luck to them!!! If it p!sses off prohibitionists EVEN BETTER!!!

Nice to know my taxes are getting spent on SOMETHING worthwhile instead of clapped out banks!

As for drug testing? Never.

Pass that pipe over here :rolleyes:

Overheal

Horse_box wrote: »

If someone who works for years and pay's taxes suddelny gets let go they are entitled to do whatever the **** they want with their dole money

Well thats kind of the idea of PRSI and Pensions isnt it.

DarkJager

Overheal wrote: »

Think about it this way: an employer can dictate that you take random drug tests as part of your employment; why can't the state make the same stipulation of the Dole?

Because the state isn't my employer? It is providing me with a supplementary payment which I have been funding with tax while I was working. Now I'm unemployed, I have every right to claim this payment as I have worked for it to be available when such a situation arose.

This is the distinction people are missing in this thread. There are people on the dole who have never worked a day in their lives. These are the people who are wasting your money, they are being funded by the state. So in the case of these "never worked a day" guys - test them and slash the dole as much as you want.

Others, like myself are on the dole through no fault of our own, but at least we've worked for the payments we are getting. Infringing on this would be like someone dictating to you how you spend your wages.

Truley

SugarHigh wrote: »

Are burbon creams illegal.

I can't believe the sense of entitlement to illegal drugs some people have.

Not to my knowledge but as someone who rarely eats sugery junk food I don't see why my tax money should be wasted on people who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

On a more serious note, the state pays the welfare receipients, where does the state get its money from, hmmmmmmm? I wonder... *ponders*