Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should a person have to pass a drug test before they receive govt benefits? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of your post is irrelevant and I've taken it out.

    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    But my argument was that the government is acting like a bully when people ask them for benefits, since there is no one else giving benefits but them.
    Not true. Charities exist.

    If a private corporation is giving benefits, then of course they can require drug tests, because they're a PRIVATE corporation, they're entitled to their own practices, and not many would expect them to uphold high moral standards. But the government is not a private entity, the government WORKS FOR US, not the other way around, and the government shouldn't make you jump through hoops just to receive a check considering that before that person was unemployed, he or she paid taxes to that very same government.
    The government also has a responsibility to the taxpayer not to spend their money wastefully, and if drug testing is going to alleviate the waste, then it's a good idea.
    My original point remains true. The libertarian argument does not work here because there is no coercion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think we are forgetting that anyone here could, one day, be a drug addict or a alcoholic.
    Just because you have GCSEs, Alevels or even maybe a degree it does not mean you are immune from addiction.
    You can think "oh Id never get into that" but you would be surprise what kind of people do and how easy it is to fall into.

    In the past many doctors, lawyers, investment bankers ect have have had addictions involving drugs and alcohol. These addiction cost and it is not unheard of for addicts to become homeless and then get rehoused into counsel houses.
    (this does happen a lot because I have worked with many addicts who have been through this process)
    They once paid their tax. They should be able to claim it in benefits when they fall ill. Just like when smokers get cancer they are allowed to take up beds on cancer wards and get free treatments.

    And lets just consider they are "chavs" who dont want to help themselves (not my opinion but a one that seems to be floating around this thread). One trait of sever addition is that the person is unable to help themselves, literally, all they know is the addiction. So what do you do then?
    Living without and addiction is normal to us because we dont have one. But to these guys it is hard for them to believe that they could ever even be without it.

    You cant just leave people penny-less and hope they find their way out of it. Would you like it if some one did that to you or a member of you family? Because remember this could happen to you!!!!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    A lot of your post is irrelevant and I've taken it out.

    Not true. Charities exist.

    The government also has a responsibility to the taxpayer not to spend their money wastefully, and if drug testing is going to alleviate the waste, then it's a good idea.
    My original point remains true. The libertarian argument does not work here because there is no coercion.
    Charities send you checks when you lose your job? Forgive me, I didn't know that.

    And if you believe the government shouldn't waste our tax money then why the hell are they in Libya or Afghanistan?! That's a waste of money right there!
    I hate socialised health care; so should you pay for your own doctors because I don't believe the NHS should exist? That's probably a good idea, since no tax money is wasted on private health care. And again you're ignoring my main point: I don't believe welfare should exist in the first place, but I don't believe the government should ask anything from its citizenry when asked for its services either, because THEY WORK FOR US, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

    And like I said, drug dealers don't burn money, the money they "receive from welfare checks" flows back into the economy and the taxes they pay when they buy stuff, so it's not a waste of tax money. Sounds more like you don't want people to receive welfare if they don't uphold your standards of the perfect clean-cut sober citizen.

    Not to mention that if you're against drugs, then burn all your CD's and DVD's, because all those GREAT artists (does not include the Jonas Brothers or Micheal Bay) that made those songs and films that has enhanced your clean-cut sober empty life were all high as a kite on drugs. Maybe we should tell junkies that they can receive welfare checks if they can make meaningful soulful art once again and send those superficial commercial pussies to hell. That way the welfare money we pay can actually contribute to something, the raising of our cultural standards from this pop culture conservative Trashland we're currently in!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I take it that such a course of action aims to punish? I dont understand why a persons decision to consume something with no direct harm to others should not only be prevented by law, but also have fundamental rights taken away from them? Also even as a punishment, it only punishes the poor drug offenders as opposed to creating a punishment that is equal amongst all elements of society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon2010)
    They still could have a problem. We are not qualified to say weather they do or not. Also who said they were on benefits? or were you just naively stereotyping.

    Anyway isnt it illegal to drink on the streets? so surly the police should be called and they should acquire a criminal record.

    If they refuse help then they should get a lower rate(or rather the people who go on detox should get a supplement) but you cant leave them with nothing because that could increase crime rates and also leaving them with nothing is just like saying "if your ill you dont deserve help". You wouldn't say that to someone with cancer.
    No I wasn't just stereotyping, I think about the problems by things what I see. In my area I see the same dozen men drinking the same strong beer every day. They actually make no effort to change. Don't alcoholics get an allowance to drink as well?

    I think your comparison to cancer is quite disturbing if I'm honest.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    No I wasn't just stereotyping, I think about the problems by things what I see. In my area I see the same dozen men drinking the same strong beer every day. They actually make no effort to change. Don't alcoholics get an allowance to drink as well?

    I think your comparison to cancer is quite disturbing if I'm honest.
    How do you know these people have not tried to change? how do you know they get benefits? How do you know that there are not other factors in their life making it hard for them?

    As for the caner thing. All I am saying is that people dont ask for cancer but they get it. People dont ask for addictions but they get it.
    Some cancers can be caused by the choices that people make in their life (eg, smoking, bad diet, sunbeds) and addiction can be caused by choice that people make in their life (e.g. trying drugs or having a couple of drinks when your stressed and it all getting out of control).
    I dont get why you dont see them as similar???
    If you are going to say that people who have addictions should not get benefits then you should also think that people who have lung cancer from smoking should not get free NHS help.

    You obviously have very little understanding of addiction so until you learnt a little more and work with some addicts I dont think you can really think you will ever realise.
    Dont forget addiction could happen to you and you might need those benefits too one day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon2010)
    How do you know these people have not tried to change? how do you know they get benefits? How do you know that there are not other factors in their life making it hard for them?

    As for the caner thing. All I am saying is that people dont ask for cancer but they get it. People dont ask for addictions but they get it.
    Some cancers can be caused by the choices that people make in their life (eg, smoking, bad diet, sunbeds) and addiction can be caused by choice that people make in their life (e.g. trying drugs or having a couple of drinks when your stressed and it all getting out of control).
    I dont get why you dont see them as similar???
    If you are going to say that people who have addictions should not get benefits then you should also think that people who have lung cancer from smoking should not get free NHS help.

    You obviously have very little understanding of addiction so until you learnt a little more and work with some addicts I dont think you can really think you will ever realise.
    Dont forget addiction could happen to you and you might need those benefits too one day.
    I know because since an early age I've seen the very same men drinking. I also know they get benefits because on the same day of every week they happen to be waiting outside the post office. It's quite obvious they get some sort of allowance.

    I don't see how lung cancer (I hate smoking, but it's someones choice) can be compared to people who drink alcohol for a living. I don't see why the taxpayer should give their money to people who don't contribute to society. Also, people don't get free NHS help because the Government are being nice; it's a burden on the NHS and on the taxpayer. Giving benefits to alcoholics is just making the problem worse, not solving it.

    You seem to have a empathy with those people (admit, there is some who don't want to change), why don't you have any empathy with those who have their houses broken into or those who barely scrape through life but happen to be paying for people to drink themselves to death?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    I know because since an early age I've seen the very same men drinking. I also know they get benefits because on the same day of every week they happen to be waiting outside the post office. It's quite obvious they get some sort of allowance.

    I don't see how lung cancer (I hate smoking, but it's someones choice) can be compared to people who drink alcohol for a living. I don't see why the taxpayer should give their money to people who don't contribute to society. Also, people don't get free NHS help because the Government are being nice; it's a burden on the NHS and on the taxpayer. Giving benefits to alcoholics is just making the problem worse, not solving it.

    You seem to have a empathy with those people (admit, there is some who don't want to change), why don't you have any empathy with those who have their houses broken into or those who barely scrape through life but happen to be paying for people to drink themselves to death?
    I do have empathy for these people and they can get benefits... if they apply for them. I know when I was working full time in a minimum wage job I was entitled to benefits because of my low income. If you have kids and other dependant you get even more. If they are not applying for them then that is their fault.
    Also what has getting broken into got to do with anything???:confused:

    Also you need to remember that alcohol has a high tax on it so actually these people are paying tax by just buying alcohol.

    Also, people don't get free NHS help because the Government are being nice; it's a burden on the NHS and on the taxpayer
    Im not really sure what your argument is here but smoking and getting lung cancer or not eating healthy and getting bowl cancer or diabetes is also a burden on the NHS... just as much as alcoholism is. So please tell me why you think only alcoholic and drug addicts should suffer cuts and not the others?

    In actual fact I have empathy for all who have a problem weather it be smoking, cancer, drug abuse or alcoholism. My point in this thread, which you seem to uneducated and single minded to consider, is that alcoholic and drug addicts are just as welcome to benefits and NHS time and anyone else with an illness. They are especially as entitled as a smoker who got cancer.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    Drugs can stay in your body for periods of time. If I were to lose my job now, I'd fail a drugs test because yesterday I got high. The fact I've been employed for the last 3.5 years would be negated. This situation is probably one of many examples where this kind of prerequisite would fall over.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No. Why should someone on benefits be singled out for spending a portion of it on drugs, when another person on benefits can spend it on alcohol and tvs and cigarettes etc. You could have a point if you wish to complain that they are getting enough money for luxuries. But I don't agree in you choosing which luxuries they should be allowed to buy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What about people with mental health problems that self medicate?

    Beside most of these peopel will be on IB, and with them migrating everyone over to ESA it will already be a lot harder for someone to claim on grounds of addiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littlebeckyx)
    Just wondering what your opinion is on this subject matter, should a person have to pass a drug test before they receive government benefits such as welfare? E.g income support / Job Seekers Allowance?

    Most people associate people on benefits as alcoholics / drug addicts / people that seem to have no ambition in life....maybe with this train of thought then the above question seems fair? Or do you guys think it's extra money being spent on drug tests etc when the country is already experiencing economic decline? Or do you think that the society / government should leave people to it to spend there money on what they like, and if they choose to live a drug driven lifestyle then that is there choice and they will suffer there own implications that are associated with drugs?

    Opinions wanted
    You can't punish them further. It's not that they have no ambition in life, it's that they're stuck in a rut, of spiralling crappiness and they can't get out of it. How can you say 'if they chose to live a drug driven lifestyle then that's their choice?', I find it very funny that you've not included 'help them' as an option. Do you think they want to lead that lifestyle?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophiaKeuning)
    You can't punish them further. It's not that they have no ambition in life, it's that they're stuck in a rut, of spiralling crappiness and they can't get out of it. How can you say 'if they chose to live a drug driven lifestyle then that's their choice?', I find it very funny that you've not included 'help them' as an option. Do you think they want to lead that lifestyle?
    this.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.