Drugs Testing for Benefits

[Conrod]

I cut'n'pasted this from a friend's Facebook wall:

 

Drugs Test (This was written by British Soldier- What he says makes a lot of sense!)

 

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventualy deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs l, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"

 

I quite like what he's saying - should taxpayers just have to accept that they subsidise the out of work to drink and take drugs, or should claimants be forced to spend their unearned income more sensibly?

[Tony]

It depends on whether you think that the welfare state is a safety net to keep people going in times of hardship, or a free for all / the workshy / the feckless.

[Conrod]

It depends on whether you think that the welfare state is a safety net to keep people going in times of hardship, or a free for all / the workshy / the feckless.

Well, I guess there are two camps there.

 

But even in a case where it is acting as a safety net, surely the safety net is there to ensure provision of food and shelter, not drugs?

[RootsBooster]

I cut'n'pasted this from a friend's Facebook wall:

 

Drugs Test (This was written by British Soldier- What he says makes a lot of sense!)

 

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventualy deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs l, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"

 

I quite like what he's saying - should taxpayers just have to accept that they subsidise the out of work to drink and take drugs, or should claimants be forced to spend their unearned income more sensibly?

 

Actually, I kind of agree with this. In my opinion it's not that simple though.

Here's two hypothetical examples of people on benefits and what I think should happen:

 

A) Bazza, a man in his 30's who has never had a job, has a big TV he likes to sit and watch all day, has a few cans a day and a few spliffs. He has no intention of ever getting a job and is happy to keep milking the system for as long as he can.

 

YES I think he should be denied benefits! He's a leech on society and probably his family & friends. He will never contribute anything back.

 

B) Jacko, a man in his 30's who lost his job 2 years ago, spends most days looking though the local paper and forums for jobs, goes to the job centre regularly but finds nothing, occasionally goes out and approaches local businesses in person in the hope of finding work. He has every intention of finding work and will contribute to society once again when he is employed. He has sold his big TV. Once a fortnight he treats himself to £10 of booze or maybe cannabis, I don't know which one he partakes in.

 

NO I don't see why he should be penalised for this. I've been out of work before and tried my best to find work again, for months. It can crush your spirit if you don't have something to enjoy once in a while.

 

 

The problem is, a urine test doesn't differentiate between the two. Maybe you should have to have a license to gamble though, with one of the qualifying criteria being employment, before you are granted a license. This should stop people on benefits from living in the bookie's.

[muddycoffee]

I kind of agree with Roots Booster with his analysis. Maybe only people who are long term unemployed ought to be drugs tested. Those who don't seem to be even trying to get work or improve their chances of getting work.

 

A genuine person who is trying to get work needs all the help they can get, and by that I mean help with travelling to interviews and clothing to look presentable. Maybe they should be able to claim back these expenses if they are genuinely working hard to find employment.

[Conrod]

. . . . Maybe you should have to have a license to gamble though, with one of the qualifying criteria being employment, before you are granted a license. This should stop people on benefits from living in the bookie's.

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but you raise a particularly good point here.

 

Whether some people are just born to be victims in life I don't know, but there have been vary alarming studies on the proportion of lottery income that comes from people who are out of work. Grasping at straws they may be, but when some people with families spend a significant proportion of their allowances on lottery tickets (or horses), you have to question the system that allows them to do this.

 

As I mentioned in the poll options, perhaps paying benefits in vouchers would make sure irresponsible parents can't spend money needed to look after their children on drugs and gambling.

[RootsBooster]

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but you raise a particularly good point here.

 

Whether some people are just born to be victims in life I don't know, but there have been vary alarming studies on the proportion of lottery income that comes from people who are out of work. Grasping at straws they may be, but when some people with families spend a significant proportion of their allowances on lottery tickets (or horses), you have to question the system that allows them to do this.

 

As I mentioned in the poll options, perhaps paying benefits in vouchers would make sure irresponsible parents can't spend money needed to look after their children on drugs and gambling.

 

I guess it would cost the government too much in lost tax revenue though, so it's never going to happen IMO.

 

EDIT: the gambling license idea

[fake]

No it shouldn't be allowed unless this testing is also done on all those already in work or those applying for jobs as its singling out one section of the public without good reason.

 

Some people seem to have this weird idea that all those on benefits are idle and take drugs so I'm glad its not up to them to decide what they think should happen.

 

Sometime I wonder how long these moaners have actually been in work and paid in tax and NI contributions.

[chem1st]

There should be no means test.

 

Remember this...

 

Bellum ominium contra omnes!

 

We need a basic income, to keep society from falling into chaos.

[Conrod]

No it shouldn't be allowed unless this testing is also done on all those already in work or those applying for jobs as its singling out one section of the public without good reason.

 

Some people seem to have this weird idea that all those on benefits are idle and take drugs so I'm glad its not up to them to decide what they think should happen.

 

Sometime I wonder how long these moaners have actually been in work and paid in tax and NI contributions.

But those other members of the public are paying for things from money they've earned, not money taken from other people's taxes. Perhaps the jobless shouldn't be singled out to receive benefits - those of us working should receive them too?