Australia to drug test welfare recipients

[Carolinesbeanies]

AIBU to totally agree with this?

www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

(Not dumping and running, but Im working a late today and wont be back till late evening. Didnt want to let this article go under the radar!)

What's going to be the actual practical result of such a policy?

Drug addicts will have less money.

But they'll still be suffering from an ADDICTION. A totally all-consuming addiction that I doubt anyone on this thread can even imagine. So they'll still buy drugs. Only they'll have to find another way to get the money. Maybe prostitution. Maybe stealing. Either way, crime increases. Which is bad for a society as a whole. Oh, and by the way, costs the taxpayer fucking billions.

Seriously, think these idiot policies through to their inevitable consequences before letting self-righteous anger take over.

StU

In the UK housing benefit used to be paid directly to the landlord and even then many refused benefit claimants. It just worries me that using this card immediately labels someone as a drug user and therefore not a desirable tenant so they will struggle to find housing.

*And what if the person refused the rehab scheme?

Would you cut off their benefits?*

Yes, if you are in receipt of benefits in the UK and refuse to try to find work that is exactly what happens. If you get benefits and can't get a job because of addiction then going on a rehab scheme should be required - just like going on a training scheme is.

f you get benefits and can't get a job because of addiction then going on a rehab scheme should be required - just like going on a training scheme is

I wonder how people who are refused benefits get money to survive?

And what effect that has on their family and society as a whole?

Pyong the Welfare Card is to be rolled out for all welfare recipients except aged pensioners. It won't identify us as drug addicts, it will only show that we have that card.

Drug addicts who are caught twice by testing won't have the card as they won't have any income except from crime. Which will be delightful for their kids won't it?

As Maitland Girl outlines, those of us on welfare who are getting by won't be getting by at all even if we don't do meth. It's insanity. And yes yes to the stupidity of the vote, the fucking non-binding vote!

The problem with cutting off benefits is that you cut off benefits to children.

No matter what you think of their parents - children deserve to eat.

Why drugs and not alcohol or tobacco which may cause even greater destruction to families and leave the healthcare system with a larger bill?

Also what will it serve? Drug addicts need help. Better to help them become productive members of society than condemn them to even greater poverty and their kids to a cycle of never ending poverty and addiction no?

Ttbb,

There is no such thing as "taxpayers' money".

There is money appropriated by the State through taxation. The money belongs to the State.

If you don't believe me, try evading your taxes, and see what happens when your defence in Court is "..b..b but it's my money!"

In a civilised society, the State makes provision from this money, by law, for those who need it, including criminals.

Wow - lets humiliate the poor folk! Use them as human Guinea pigs as they're fair game - why stop there? - why not test drugs and alike on them also? All under the guise of a trial..

Why do you agree, OP?

YABU, it won't save money, will likely increase crime and prostitution, and the children of addicts will suffer through no fault of their own.

In the country I'm living in, if you're on welfare and don't do anything to find work or education and follow none of the suggestions you'll still get enough money to survive (they sanction 20% through 40%) because the government knows the alternative would be much worse for society.

If I were an Australian I would soo be looking forward to a system where addicts and their children had to support themselves by crime rather than by tax payers' money. So much nicer for all of us, don't you think?

Actually, having overcome more than one addiction myself I would disagree with you strongly, as would most ex addicts. A choice is exactly what addiction is. It's the easy choice rather than the hard choice of stopping

The road to addiction is not straightforward. You become addicted without realising. Once addicted, the choice to stop is not as straightforward as you imply.
You can't stop someone being addicted. The fear of not having the drug can outweigh logic and the realisation that stopping is possible.
Every addict is different with a different back story.
It is all very well saying it was a choice once you are out the other side and thinking rationally. Not everyone can make that choice,

In a civilised society, the State makes provision from this money, by law, for those who need it, including criminals

Exactly.
I do get fed up of individuals going on about 'their' tax money going to the unemployed. Anyone would think their £x was taken from their hand and handed to a 'non-desirable'
Your taxes go toward many things...Like killing children in other countries....moan about that.

In combination with a good, obligatory treatment programme i wouldn't have a problem with it (loosing payments for non attendence to agreed treatment plan). Anyone with an addict in the family can tell you that the first piece of advice you are given is to stop giving them money. My dbro never had a penny in JSA that didn't go straight to his dealer.

Thanks for clarifying that StU I didnt realise that it was everybody. As you say though, what if you manage your finances differently to their formula?! Its a fucking ridiculous idea.

And I cant help thinking that the OP is after some fodder for something.......

BarbarianMum, that is on the assumption that every addict has a loving family who look after his money and make sure he is still being fed? What about the ones who don't? Don't they require food at all?

Addicts don't spend their welfare money on anything as mundane as housing or food ime. It goes straight on drugs. The rent isn't paid, the kids aren't clothed and the food comes from theft/a food bank (free school meals for the kids).

Barbarian, I see where you are coming from and your bitterness is very understandable, but common sense suggests that nobody could survive on a food bank in the UK (usually by referral and only available for three hand-outs or thereabouts). Also that children cannot survive on free handouts alone: they would starve to death during the first holidays.

Yes, no doubt addicts get food from theft- but do you think there will be less theft if theft has to finance all their needs?

No free school meals here.

No, i think there will be less theft/hungry neglected children if benefit payments are linked to attendence of good, accessible, long-term drug treatment programmes. Obviously without access to these programmes stopping benefits as a type of punishment is an awful idea.

Yes - Barbarian Mum. My experience too. They don't buy the kids food anyway; not when they're on ice, anyway.

BarbarianMum, I suspect your idea- which seems civilised and humane and very possibly workable- is far from what is actually about to be implemented.

MaitlandGirl I just looked up the Department of Social Services page and it says the card can be used anywhere that eftpos can. Do all of those places you listed not accept eftpos?

And fair enough if landlords don't want meth/ice addicts in their homes because they end up trashed. I have personal experience of this.

Unfortunately cory I agree.