Drug tests for welfare recipients

Mint Sauce

MagicSean wrote: »

Because it's money that should be going to help people instead of to dealers. Personally I all welfare money should be accounted for. No drugs, alcohol, smokes or nights out. if you are struggling and need help then that's fine, i have no problem helping you. If you want luxuries then get a ****ing job and stop scrounging off the rest of us.

i wouldn't stop there though. A job seeking and skill development diary should be kept by all recipients of JSB and JSA. No single parents allownce should be provided without details of the other parent (with certain obvious exceptions) so the state my persue them for costs. JSA and JSB recipients should be required to perform volunteer work.

Not everyone on the dole are on it by choice. Someone could be in a well paid or even in an average paid job, and be used to a certain lifestyle, or luxuries, and am including the legal ones in that statement. Yes if they do lose their job they will have to make changes, but shouldn't be expected to become socailly outcast.

I was unfortunate enough to lose my job two years ago. After 12 months of job hunting, and doing a couple of part time courses, I eventually got a part time job, then on to a full time course before getting a full time job last month. I can tell you for some of that first year it was preaty damn close to depressing at times, I was used to going out a couple times a week, and buying most of what I wanted. All of a sudden I had to cut back and watch all the pennies, had to pay for petrol to travel to interviews and to one of them courses, if i hadn't been allowed to have a little bit of me time or go for the odd pint, and it was the odd one during that time, I think I would have gone slightly mad.

I do agree with you that people on benefit should be expected to show what they are doing in regards to job hunting or increasing their prospects of finding work, and I dont mean by the current SW standards of just having to sign once a month. In that first 12 months before starting my course I wasn't asked to show anything once.

SocSocPol

We don't drug test Bus drivers,Train drivers,Ambulance crews,Armed Gardai, Fire Fighters,Nurses,Doctors,or Teachers.
Yet some "social nazi" thinks we should drug test those unlucky enough to have lost their jobs?
Maybe if we had have drug tested the politicans and bankers we wouldn't have an unemployment problem at all!

MagicSean

irish-stew wrote: »

Not everyone on the dole are on it by choice. Someone could be in a well paid or even in an average paid job, and be used to a certain lifestyle, or luxuries, and am including the legal ones in that statement. Yes if they do lose their job they will have to make changes, but shouldn't be expected to become socailly outcast.

I was unfortunate enough to lose my job two years ago. After 12 months of job hunting, and doing a couple of part time courses, I eventually got a part time job, then on to a full time course before getting a full time job last month. I can tell you for some of that first year it was preaty damn close to depressing at times, I was used to going out a couple times a week, and buying most of what I wanted. All of a sudden I had to cut back and watch all the pennies, had to pay for petrol to travel to interviews and to one of them courses, if i hadn't been allowed to have a little bit of me time or go for the odd pint, and it was the odd one during that time, I think I would have gone slightly mad.

I do agree with you that people on benefit should be expected to show what they are doing in regards to job hunting or increasing their prospects of finding work, and I dont mean by the current SW standards of just having to sign once a month. In that first 12 months before starting my course I wasn't asked to show anything once.

If you try and go along the line of giving people what they are use to then the politicans and bankers may as well keep their golden retirement packages.

SocSocPol wrote: »

We don't drug test Bus drivers,Train drivers,Ambulance crews,Armed Gardai, Fire Fighters,Nurses,Doctors,or Teachers.
Yet some "social nazi" thinks we should drug test those unlucky enough to have lost their jobs?
Maybe if we had have drug tested the politicans and bankers we wouldn't have an unemployment problem at all!

So you think drugs make you do a poor job?

Mint Sauce

MagicSean wrote: »

If you try and go along the line of giving people what they are use to then the politicans and bankers may as well keep their golden retirement packages.

Not saying give people what they are used to, but dont cut them out altogether. Not talking about illegal or recreational drugs here, but just stuff generally. Obvously the career welfare abusers need to be looked at and monitored, but people who are genually trying should not be outcast and made examples of.

niallu

Well those who pay taxes shouldn't see it wasted in some junkie shooting up!

Most companies have in their contract that they can screen for drugs anyways!

I don't know who could be against this idea. Take a trip around the quays and see how your tax euros are being spent.

They say it costs to keep 12 people in prison per annum 1m, I'd love to see the costs for the junkies with the free accom and free methadone.

MagicSean

Channel Zero wrote: »

And how would you like to enforce this? Let's see..

I have a suggestion. Let's ankle-tag all unemployed people!

If they attempt to buy a bottle of wine on a Friday night, or God forbid, enter a local pub or restaurant with their loved one on a "night out", the guards can be immediately dispatched to the scene.

I don't like using these much but here we go, just for you:

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

irish-stew wrote: »

Not saying give people what they are used to, but dont cut them out altogether. Not talking about illegal or recreational drugs here, but just stuff generally. Obvously the career welfare abusers need to be looked at and monitored, but people who are genually trying should not be outcast and made examples of.

On that we agree

scamalert

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.
smartest answer so far,otherwise anyone need a fresh sample of pee

mattjack

niallu wrote: »

Well those who pay taxes shouldn't see it wasted in some junkie shooting up!

Most companies have in their contract that they can screen for drugs anyways!

I don't know who could be against this idea. Take a trip around the quays and see how your tax euros are being spent.

They say it costs to keep 12 people in prison per annum 1m, I'd love to see the costs for the junkies with the free accom and free methadone.

Most companies don't test,its a grey area needing a doctor to test and form an opinion weather or not an employee is fit for work.
Its dependent too on the nature of the job.
I think the doctor isn't allowed give the result of the tests to the employer other than say if the employee is fit.

CamperMan

a great idea.. and it should be introduced in Ireland

girl in the striped socks

poppyvally wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I don't really think its anyone's business what someone spends their money on,

" THEIR" money is funded by taxpayers

Assuming they worked at some stage & paid taxes then they are quite entitled to claim whatever money is due to them without feeling under obligation to live like they should be grateful for receiving benefits they have contributed to.
Just because you receive benefits it doesn't mean you have to be made feel like a criminal by pissing into a pot to prove you don't take drugs.

Channel Zero

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

You need to re-think your position and stop being naive.

Odysseus

Sure we used to test twice a week in methadone clinics, due to cut backs it is now twice a month. A significant amount of patients are against this as giving samples twice a week helped the stay clean.

So if we cannot afford it in our clinics, how are we going to pay for it. I haven't read this thread yet, but can only imagine the prejudice against addicts in, of course I hoped I proved wrong but I doubt it.

Odysseus

LimerickSports wrote: »

i think its a very good idea, but could be too harsh, if someone just smoked a joint at a party its not like other people on the dole who spend all there money on weed, drink and other drugs they dont deserve social welfare so i think its a brilliant idea if they test how much drugs are in the system etc. but will also need to put these people into some sort of rehab or care rather than cancelling their welfare making them homeless and addicted to drugs

Research how much testing costs, without test for amounts which is very inexact.

Odysseus

niallu wrote: »

Well those who pay taxes shouldn't see it wasted in some junkie shooting up!

Most companies have in their contract that they can screen for drugs anyways!

I don't know who could be against this idea. Take a trip around the quays and see how your tax euros are being spent.

They say it costs to keep 12 people in prison per annum 1m, I'd love to see the costs for the junkies with the free accom and free methadone.

Methadone is next to nothing in price, services cost. Just because you pay taxes [just using you as an example] give you no right to dictate how a person spends their SW. How do you know your taxes go towards the SW fund?

Odysseus

mattjack wrote: »

So mrMattjack, you gave a dirty urine in your test , have you taken any opiates recently ?

Yes , boss. I had a headache and took some solpedeine.

We can identify the opiate, but it costs a lot

Cee-Jay-Cee

I agree with it but i dont see the point in it in this country. I dont honestly think it would save a whole lot and would probably end up costing more to implement/run than what it would save.

Irish Guitarist

The social welfare should give out drug vouchers the way they used to give out butter vouchers.

Instead of seized drugs being destroyed they should be given out to drug addicts free of charge.

MagicSean

yammycat wrote: »

Public sector wages ?, so i guess you want to privatise all schools hospitals prisons , guards, everything

Not particularly. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of the deficit is from public sector wages, wether you like it or not.

up for anything

MagicSean wrote: »

So you think drugs make you do a poor job?

Of course not! They enhance performance. :rolleyes:

southsiderosie

Did the people who are in favor of these policies even read the whole article?

Here's a hint: not only did welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general population, but testing didn't save the state any money:

Results of the tests in themselves discredited the law and the justifications of its supporters. During the four months that the law was in place, 4,086 welfare applicants were subjected to the test. By the state’s records, only 2.6 percent—108 applicants—failed the drug test, most often for marijuana. This rate is far lower than estimated rates of drug use in the population as a whole.

The Florida law moreover proved to be a financial loss to the state, since applicants who passed the screening had to be reimbursed for its cost, on average about $35. The total cost of the reimbursements was more than would have been paid out in TANF aid to the applicants who failed the test. Overall, the drug testing cost the state an additional $45,780 on top of welfare outlays.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

Did the people who are in favor of these policies even read the whole article? :

....there was a rush to the shops for pitchforks, as things close early on the sunday.

Einhard

What business is it of anyone else what people spend their money on? Fair enough, I can understand why people might want to reduce the maount spent on social welfare, but to demand that people spend their money on a prescribed list of goods and services is both obnoxious and intrusive. If someone is on social welfare, and decides that they'll go without something in order to have a night out, that's their perogative. The idea that they should be prevented from doing so smacks of something from the Ireland of the squinting windows era.

Odysseus

up for anything wrote: »

Of course not! They enhance performance. :rolleyes:

Think of any highly paid profession and I know addicts in a significant amount of them. If they did not produce the goods they would be out the door, not all addicts spend their day in town tapping up A lot earn 2-3-4 times more than I do

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

I'm sure Edna Kenny will get right on to Ulster bank about this.....

paddy147

Drug tests for all that FG/Labour shower in the dail,as they really talk some amount of shyte in there.

They clearly cannot think straight either.

Monty Burnz

yammycat wrote: »

Tax payers are paying off 250 billion of banking debts, prawn cocktail munching ass hats who cost us 250 billion,

Uh...can you show us where you got that figure please?

paddy147

Dont forget 12,000 euro of tax payers money for a week long holiday for "poor" Phil Hogan to Brazil.

tdv123

LimerickSports wrote: »

i think its a very good idea, but could be too harsh, if someone just smoked a joint at a party its not like other people on the dole who spend all there money on weed, drink and other drugs they dont deserve social welfare so i think its a brilliant idea if they test how much drugs are in the system etc. but will also need to put these people into some sort of rehab or care rather than cancelling their welfare making them homeless and addicted to drugs

Yeah, that won't cost the taxpayer any money.

up for anything

Odysseus wrote: »

Think of any highly paid profession and I know addicts in a significant amount of them. If they did not produce the goods they would be out the door, not all addicts spend their day in town tapping up A lot earn 2-3-4 times more than I do

I bow to your avowed knowledge about these things. Perhaps I should have added after a fashion. There does come a point in most addict's life where "the higher you are, the lower you fall". It doesn't matter how high they've gotten in their professions or how much money they have made, most eventually get to the stage where they enjoy a bottle of Brut and not the champagne but the aftershave.

The fact that they bring in the clients/cash/business for the companies that they work with can be balanced by the misery of working with/under them. I doubt that there are many highly paid professions where a non-recreational user can continue for too many years.

JustAThought

mattjack wrote: »

[QUOTE=

Most companies don't test,its a grey area needing a doctor to test and form an opinion weather or not an employee is fit for work.
Its dependent too on the nature of the job.
I think the doctor isn't allowed give the result of the tests to the employer other than say if the employee is fit.

Em. My last three jobs I had to agree to a full medical for desk based manager roles. I had to agree in advance for the HR department to have full access or I would not progress in the job interview to get the contract . I didn't want to & I argued the point but it was no medical; no job-simple as that . Did the medical got the contract. And no amount of arguing over dr patient confidentiality or otherwise was relevant.

That was just a medical: not drugs screening for illegal drugs.

hytrogen

yammycat wrote: »

so yea get mad at the guy drinking his benefits, his benefits are 1% of your tax, 99% of your tax goes to the well do do lovie dovies who don't spend benefits on drink, they just sh1t the country down the toilet while trying to get maaad rich. And laughing too because nobody cares, they are too mad they have to work and johnny spends his 100 quid on booze while they have to work, omg i have to work while he drinks (too fukin thick to realise the huge tax i pay is to subsidize gambling bankers and not to pay for Johnny's booze )

Can you prove that statistic of taxation? Have you inquired with the Revenue Commission for fact or are you just propagating fiction to defend the selfish wasters of society?

if you are concerned about how anyone spends benefits you are short a few pennies and are part of the problem

Practice what you preach so.. It's very easy to point the finger of blame to the opposite end if your socio-economic scale but without hard facts, just those ULA preaching bull**** about conscription and abortion did during their Lisbon treaty campaign & still do, propagating fiction just makes you look like a duchebag..

EI_Flyboy

Failing to recognise the part the banks played in our current situation comes across as awefully douchey too. There are many who seem to be of the same opinion as Brenda Powers in that the jobless might be entitled to benefits but they're not entitled to any fun whatsoever. Think of it like this, if you have a nice car, a nice house containing many nice things and a nice life, the dole is the bribe you pay the great unwashed so they don't take them from you. Cut the dole or take away what little enjoyment they have left and you'll find crime goes way up. The London riots didn't come out of thin air, they happened because the have nots got sick of the haves keeping a boot on their neck. Why is it that so many people are so full of hate? It's not good for you.

Odysseus

tdv123 wrote: »

Yeah, that won't cost the taxpayer any money.

And you think testing is free?

tdv123

Odysseus wrote: »

And you think testing is free?

No, why would it be?

Odysseus

tdv123 wrote: »

No, why would it be?

Treatment services have reduced the amount of testing done by 25% because it is so costly. So if we can't afford to test patients, where is the cash going to come from to test all those on SW

irishpaddy

hope your not using them as part of the black economy, that would be cheating on the tax man, and hope all on here have paid their house charge in time, boy but we sure need the money after those bankers slipped up, and got caught out.:mad:

token101

And if they fail the test we cut them off is it? Well the money saved on welfare will just be spent on locking them up when they eventually break into your house and hold your family at needle point to steal your dole that you received when you tested clean :pac:

I'd be more in favour of incentivising treatment programmes somehow. But f*ck knows how you'd do that fairly in the welfare system.

tdv123

Odysseus wrote: »

Treatment services have reduced the amount of testing done by 25% because it is so costly. So if we can't afford to test patients, where is the cash going to come from to test all those on SW

Well thats why I think it's just a terrible idea.

irishpaddy

Channel Zero wrote: »

And how would you like to enforce this? Let's see..

I have a suggestion. Let's ankle-tag all unemployed people!

If they attempt to buy a bottle of wine on a Friday night, or God forbid, enter a local pub or restaurant with their loved one on a "night out", the guards can be immediately dispatched to the scene.

I don't like using these much but here we go, just for you:

would not make suggestions that are such good ideas, they may come into law. your suggestion would solve all their worries;;; cheaply.

Odysseus

tdv123 wrote: »

Well thats why I think it's just a terrible idea.

Apologies, without rechecking the whole thread, I remember you posting about treatment and it costing too much to the tax payer, but I thought you where in agreement with testing.

It is a terrible idea, but I have noted the way certain labs have put themselves out their, backing all type of ramdom testing as the will make a lot of money out of it.

mattjack

JustAThought wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

Em. My last three jobs I had to agree to a full medical for desk based manager roles. I had to agree in advance for the HR department to have full access or I would not progress in the job interview to get the contract . I didn't want to & I argued the point but it was no medical; no job-simple as that . Did the medical got the contract. And no amount of arguing over dr patient confidentiality or otherwise was relevant.

That was just a medical: not drugs screening for illegal drugs.

ok.

Chuck Stone

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

It should be done by medics only, drug screen cards are not the best, we use them, but if we are discussing the person's drug status for court we only use lab results. We would never use a test screen card for legal reasons.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

So you have no problem with the woman who minds your kid in the creche getting stoned before work? What about the fella fixing your gas fire? No. How about your pilot? Or is it that you think cops should be checking on these people in their jobs?

Feathers

Channel Zero wrote:

MagicSean wrote:

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

You need to re-think your position and stop being naive.

I'd agree with this for the most part — wouldn't bother with a Welfare officer checking what you spent your money on, but would give people credit rather than cash. Mostly to stop people going up to Newry or Derry at the weekend to spend it. Don't think there's anything naïve about it; I'm sure if you were running a shop or a restaurant in Letterkenny or Dundalk you'd be singing a different tune.

I don't see what so immoral about asking someone to contribute back to the economy with money they're receiving from it & avoiding spending that money abroad or on the black market.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

So you have no problem with the woman who minds your kid in the creche getting stoned before work? What about the fella fixing your gas fire? No. How about your pilot? Or is it that you think cops should be checking on these people in their jobs?

People shouldn't take chemicals that impair them when they are going to work (unless they are musicians or painters or politicians etc).

What I meant is that there should be credible suspicion* that a person drinking/using drugs is placing others in harms way and only an officer of the law should be imbued with the power to initiate the process.

*Presumption of innocence.

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

Yes its totally retarded to be checking:
Bus drivers
Train drivers
Airline Pilots
Emergency Services
Soldiers
Armed Gardai

Or maybe the the retards are those who oppose such testing, after all defending the right of bus drivers to have a few spliffs before getting behind the wheel is a key human right.:mad:

Chuck Stone

SocSocPol wrote: »

Yes its totally retarded to be checking:
Bus drivers
Train drivers
Airline Pilots
Emergency Services
Soldiers
Armed Gardai

Or maybe the the retards are those who oppose such testing, after all defending the right of bus drivers to have a few spliffs before getting behind the wheel is a key human right.:mad:

Transparent strawman bullshit is transparent.

It's totally retarded to be checking everyone as a matter of policy - if there is a suspicion of impairment on the part of a person who should be concerned with the well-being of others - by all means investigate.

Otherwise it's little more than authoritarian fascism dressed up as concern for the public.

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Transparent strawman bullshit is transparent.

It's totally retarded to be checking everyone as a matter of policy - if there is a suspicion of impairment on the part of a person who should be concerned with the well-being of others - by all means investigate.

Otherwise it's little more than authoritarian fascism dressed up as concern for the public.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that.

My dad was a union rep for twenty years, and even they agreed to drug testing for people whose jobs potentially put other people at risk (crane operators, being a key example). Now the union also made sure that they got a chance to go to rehab and be reinstated (once) if they failed a drug test, but it is not unreasonable to expect people to be clean in certain jobs.

Chuck Stone

southsiderosie wrote: »

My dad was a union rep for twenty years, and even they agreed to drug testing for people whose jobs potentially put other people at risk (crane operators, being a key example). Now the union also made sure that they got a chance to go to rehab and be reinstated (once) if they failed a drug test, but it is not unreasonable to expect people to be clean in certain jobs.

I'd be interested to know if they were being tested for illegal drug use or were they being tested for being impaired on the job? Also, I can't help but think that without the union defending workers rights any worker failing a test (impaired?) would have been fired summarily.

It's none of an employers damn business what a person does in their own time as long as it isn't having a detrimental effect on their performance.

As regards our civil liberties we cede any ground to corporations and governments at our peril.