Jump to content

Drugs Testing for Benefits

Conrod

By Conrod
in Padders' Bar: General Discussions

Should claimants have to pass random drug tests to receive benefits?  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Should claimants have to pass random drug tests to receive benefits?

    • Yes, and if they fail the tests have their benefits stopped until they can provide clear samples.
      24
    • Yes, and if caught their benefits should be reduced by a percentage until they can pass.
      11
    • They should only receive food and domestic service vouchers anyway, not money.
      28
    • No, they should be able to spend other people's money any way they want, even illegally.
      19

Recommended Posts

Frank Sidney

Frank Sidney

Posted
Posted

Yet more badly thought through nonesense.

 

It'd probably cost more to drug test everyone than the savings made in stopping people's benefit.

 

What if the man signs on and has a wife and two kids. Wouldn't the system punish them?

 

If you stopped peoples benefit they'd lose their home and then make a Homeless claim and be re-housed in Homeless Hostels which would cost a fortune.

 

Some of the people who get into drugs are not bad people. Some young people have an chaotic start to life and end up taking drugs to medicate.

 

What if the soldier in question suffers PTSD and is discharged, and then starts using drugs as some ex-service people do. Is he entitled to claim benefit after putting his life on the line.

 

Basically this thread was devised with little though, a lot of nastiness and little grasp of economics.

 

Go back to bed and dream another one up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conrod

Conrod

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yet more badly thought through nonesense.

It'd probably cost more to drug test everyone than the savings made in stopping people's benefit.

What if the man signs on and has a wife and two kids. Wouldn't the system punish them?

If you stopped peoples benefit they'd lose their home and then make a Homeless claim and be re-housed in Homeless Hostels which would cost a fortune.

Some of the people who get into drugs are not bad people. Some young people have an chaotic start to life and end up taking drugs to medicate.

What if the soldier in question suffers PTSD and is discharged, and then starts using drugs as some ex-service people do. Is he entitled to claim benefit after putting his life on the line.

Basically this thread was devised with little though, a lot of nastiness and little grasp of economics.

Go back to bed and dream another one up...

So you're happy for claimants to spend your tax money on drugs when they should be using it to feed their family?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bassman62

Bassman62

Posted
Posted
Yet more badly thought through nonesense.

 

It'd probably cost more to drug test everyone than the savings made in stopping people's benefit.

 

What if the man signs on and has a wife and two kids. Wouldn't the system punish them?

 

If you stopped peoples benefit they'd lose their home and then make a Homeless claim and be re-housed in Homeless Hostels which would cost a fortune.

 

Some of the people who get into drugs are not bad people. Some young people have an chaotic start to life and end up taking drugs to medicate.

 

What if the soldier in question suffers PTSD and is discharged, and then starts using drugs as some ex-service people do. Is he entitled to claim benefit after putting his life on the line.

 

Basically this thread was devised with little though, a lot of nastiness and little grasp of economics.

 

Go back to bed and dream another one up...

 

Do I take it that you're happy that some of your taxes go to feeding druggie/subsatnce abusers self created habits?

 

Regarding HMForces several of my family served throughout WWII, none of them became druggies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank Sidney

Frank Sidney

Posted
Posted
So you're happy for claimants to spend your tax money on drugs when they should be using it to feed their family?

 

No not all of them. But as I stated its not as simple as that. In the grown up world, there's an application form online if you'd care to google, things are not that simple. You've failed to answer any of the points I raised by the way.

 

And yes I'd be quiet happy for some of my tax money to go to people on drugs. They're ill....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank Sidney

Frank Sidney

Posted
Posted
Do I take it that you're happy that some of your taxes go to feeding druggie/subsatnce abusers self created habits?

 

Regarding HMForces several of my family served throughout WWII, none of them became druggies.

 

Yes I am quite happy.

 

The relevance of soldiers who were demobbed in 1945 in comparison to more recent war vets is a bad one. I don't think drugs were that widely available then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conrod

Conrod

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yes I am quite happy.

 

The relevance of soldiers who were demobbed in 1945 in comparison to more recent war vets is a bad one. I don't think drugs were that widely available then...

I suspect drug dealers would have been hanged back then if it was widely available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kittenta Proficient

kittenta

Posted
Posted

There has been a number of posts removed throughout this thread due to reports. If you wish for the thread to remain open, please refrain from bickering, identifying individuals or revealing personal information.

 

We would prefer to keep threads open for as long as possible, please think before posting to allow us to do so.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyRocks Apprentice

MonkeyRocks

Posted
Posted
If they were decent upstanding people and weren't substance abusers/druggies it should make them feel good to know that substance abusers/druggies were being targeted for wasting public money.

 

Oh Bassman, might have known you'd be going in hard on this one. My whole outlook on this is that it's a ridiculous idea. Basically saying anyone who takes any sort of substance for whatever reason should be left to die with no money, no home, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert_Baehr Proficient

Rupert_Baehr

Posted
Posted

I'm retired military (Royal Air Force.) Nobody forced me to join.

 

I can understand the feelings of the soldier quoted in the OP, but his argument is fatally flawed.

 

Nobody forced him to join, either. But when he did so, he swore/affirmed an oath of attestation which committed him to defend the realm. - That includes the bad guys, turds and people you'd rather see dead just as much as it does the rest of the population.

 

As a soldier, sailor or airman you do your job. Ordinarily that job will not require you to pass judgement on civilians - that's within the remit of the (civilian) justice system. - Nothing to do with you.

 

The soldier does have a right to express his opinion, but (IMO) it would be a sad day for the country when the opinion of a soldier - and soldier,includes the Chief of the General Staff - could over-ride our civilian masters.

 

NB: The soldier quoted didn't complain about his lot. He appears to accept his life.

 

If you think there is something wrong in the picture he painted, please write to your MP and say so. But rather than trying to recoup money from the spongers (the government has a department set up to do that) please encourage your MP to help soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.