Drugs Testing for Benefits

[Chris_Sleeps]

Do you think a parent should have the right to restrict how a child spends its pocket money?

Benefits money isn't pocket money though, and one adult shouldn't dictate to another adult how to spend that money.

[Halibut]

 

Do you think a parent should have the right to restrict how a child spends its pocket money? The child hasn't earned that money, so the parent is right to limit the child's spending options.

 

Like Chris said; adults aren't children. Even poor ones (and I know this is hard for you to swallow) have the right to spend their money as they choose.

[Halibut]

Well, I wouldn't have that choice to make, your money would go into the company acounts, not mine, but even it it did go straight to me, the difference is that I would have earned that money, while the claimant would not.

 

They don't need to have earned it. As a civilised society we give that money to those who need it.

[Conrod]

Benefits money isn't pocket money though, and one adult shouldn't dictate to another adult how to spend that money.

Like Chris said; adults aren't children. Even poor ones (and I know this is hard for you to swallow) have the right to spend their money as they choose.

Not if they haven't earned it.

 

Do you really think that a feckless young father (or mother) who has responsibility for children should be allowed to spend their benefits on drugs rather than food and heating? Plenty of this happens, because some people are not capable of making decisions for themselves and should be treated/managed accordingly.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Do you really think that a feckless young father (or mother) who has responsibility for children should be allowed to spend their benefits on drugs rather than food and heating?

No, far from it. I don't think people should be forced to take drugs tests though, just because they claim benefits.

[chem1st]

Look at Florida where this now happens.

 

2% tested positive for drugs, 2% refused to take the test. At most, 4% of people on welfare could be using drugs.

 

Yet in the general population 8%+ of people test positive for drugs. The majority of drug users work (they have to fund their habit!), workers are more likely to test positive.

 

Then consider returning soldiers, well, they are even more likely to take drugs!

 

The testing is costing more than it saves, and that's just in monetary terms, not considering the social evils that arise! And the person who enacted the tests, owns the company that does the testing!

 

It's also unconstitutional and being challenged in law.

 

Not to mention the fact that we are fighting a war to secure the illegal drug trade anyhow, after the Taliban banned opium growing!

 

If they are testing the people on welfare, they should be testing the politicians every week!

 

What a waste of money to divert resources to testing people to see if they have used drugs.

[Conrod]

No, far from it. I don't think people should be forced to take drugs tests though, just because they claim benefits.

Then how else can measures be put in place to dissuade them form doing just that, without some form of testing and a resulting strong incentive to avoid drugs?

[Halibut]

Not if they haven't earned it.

 

Do you really think that a feckless young father (or mother) who has responsibility for children should be allowed to spend their benefits on drugs rather than food and heating? Plenty of this happens, because some people are not capable of making decisions for themselves and should be treated/managed accordingly.

 

If a young mother is so feckless that her children are at risk then there are already services that exist to keep the children safe and help the mother.

 

The principle that adults can make their own choices isn't one that should be set aside on the basis that some people make poor choices.

[Conrod]

If a young mother is so feckless that her children are at risk then there are already services that exist to keep the children safe and help the mother.

 

The principle that adults can make their own choices isn't one that should be set aside on the basis that some people make poor choices.

It's set aside regularly - that's what happens when we arrest and jail people.

 

The same priciple should apply at lower levels of poor conduct if dim or irresponsible people are unable to be reasonable members of society.

[Halibut]

Then how else can measures be put in place to dissuade them form doing just that, without some form of testing and a resulting strong incentive to avoid drugs?

 

Why should there be any measures to dissuade the poor from using drugs over and above any other section of society?

Our drug laws are all wrong anyway - you just want to further penalise the poor because you don't like them.