Drugs Testing for Benefits

[Halibut]

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

 

Not so. The principle that people can choose isn't set aside, we just add the part that says 'and if you choose to break the law there's a consequence to that'.

 

 

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

 

How does smoking cannabis or using other recreational substances render a person unreasonable or irresponsible exactly?

Many many thousands do these things and are just as responsible, law abiding and productive as those who choose not to.

[fake]

Actually, I think the way anybody spends somebody else's money should be decided by the person/people who provide the money, not the ones receiving it for nothing.

 

 

The people who provide the money (the Government) have already decided.

 

 

All rights should be earned, not granted irrespective.

 

 

Would that also apply to the Human Rights Act? How about the protection of those in work? Perhaps Employment rights should be scrapped as well?

 

PS.

Have you found those statistics yet showing the percentage of claimants that take drugs?

[Conrod]

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.

You're off the plot if you think I have any reason or need to 'dislike the poor'. I don't; however, think that people should not be able to waste money that is provided to them at somebody else's expense.

 

I think everybody should be dissuaded from breaking the law, and I'd be delighted to empower the Police to perfom random drugs tests on anybody in the street who looks suitably undesirable or degenerate, but in the case of those who are being funded by others' efforts and taxes, further controls might be useful.

[Conrod]

The people who provide the money (the Government) have already decided.

 

Would that also apply to the Human Rights Act? How about the protection of those in work? Perhaps Employment rights should be scrapped as well?

 

PS.

Have you found those statistics yet showing the percentage of claimants that take drugs?

Anbsolutley - one of the first things this country needs to do is ditch the Human Rights Act in its entirety.

 

(and, ps, we both know those figures aren't available, so no need to be pedantic over a frivolous request).

[Rupert_Baehr]

I think if you're going to import an illiberal and authoritarian policy like this from a US wingnut, you must apply it consistently.

 

So that means everyone in receipt of state money, including child benefit, state pension, tax credits, civil servants, armed forces, policemen, doctors, nurses, academics, MPs, special advisors to MPs, Peers, etc should all be randomly tested for drugs and drug impairment (including alcohol and prescription drugs)

 

You'll need an entirely new government Department of Random Drugs Testing, and a way of filtering out false positives from all the legal subtances (particularly opiates and stimulants which are found in a very large number of OTC and prescription remedies) and determine whether impairment is present in all cases.

 

So apart from being cynically aimed at the poorest people in spite of the moral argument applying to all recipients of state money, and in spite of ignoring the logistical and financial nightmare of enacting such a policy, yeah - great idea!

 

Did you hear about the Silicon Valley software firm that drug tests its employees?

 

I bet you've heard of the ones that specifically don't.

 

"Civil servants, armed forces, policemen, doctors, nurses," ... Already tested (albeit not every day.)

 

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the tests are: "cynically aimed at the poorest people"?

 

If the terms of employment include a clause which requires random drug testing, how do you interpret that requirement as 'being discriminatory'?

 

 

 

(I hadn't realised I was one of the poor people ...Where do I go to get my government handout?)

[Phanerothyme]

"Civil servants, armed forces, policemen, doctors, nurses," ... Already tested (albeit not every day.)

 

Can you point me towards some corroboration. Civil servants (of all grades), Nurses and Doctors are not randomly drugs tested to my knowledge.

 

Nor are Policemen, as far as I understand it.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the tests are: "cynically aimed at the poorest people"?

Because the OP is clearly aimed in that direction, and chem1st managed to source an earlier campaign in florida from which the OP is derived.

If the terms of employment include a clause which requires random drug testing, how do you interpret that requirement as 'being discriminatory'?

 

You've put "being discriminatory" in quotes, yet I didn't write those words.

 

Some employers choose to drug test, others do not. That is up to them. It certainly is discriminatory because it is intended to discriminate between people who use drugs and people who do not, in the absence of any other reason to discriminate between employees.

[Conrod]

. . .. . Some employers choose to drug test, others do not. That is up to them. It certainly is discriminatory because it is intended to discriminate between people who use drugs and people who do not, in the absence of any other reason to discriminate between employees.

Should employers not have the right to discriminate between law-abiding employees and criminals?

[Phanerothyme]

Should employers not have the right to discriminate between law-abiding employees and criminals?

 

 

Absolutely they should.

 

And for that reason, CRB checks for all government money recipients should be compulsory too. You don't want your hard earned taxes going to anyone with a criminal record do you?

[Conrod]

Absolutely they should.

 

And for that reason, CRB checks for all government money recipients should be compulsory too. You don't want your hard earned taxes going to anyone with a criminal record do you?

No, nor to people who commit crime but haven't yet been sentenced - users of illegal drugs, for example.

[Phanerothyme]

No, nor to people who commit crime but haven't yet been sentenced - users of illegal drugs, for example.

 

Well I really never expected you to be the champion of the nanny state, but there you are - waving the flag for drug testing two thirds of the adult population to make sure they are behaving themselves.

 

But I think you need to refine your policy a bit - since illegal drug users aren't society's only untried, unsentenced criminals. Instead of drug testing, why not polygraph all government money recipients - then you not only discover whether they are using illegal drugs, but also more or less anything else you deem undesireable.

 

One thing puzzles me though, are you going to allow legal drug users to continue with their habits and not test for those substances? So I could get a prescription for Sativex or Dronabinol and get wasted before signing on every fortnight? (assuming you have a battery of perfect testing kits for all substances, doesn't exist yet, but it's a minor technicality)