Love on the Dole

[Tokyo-Saint]

Should welfare recipients be randomly drug tested to continue to receive benefit payments?

 

It is pretty commonly accepted that a small percentage of people claiming state benefits spend a fair amount of that £ on weed &/or other drugs (and drink).

 

If this is suspected, should the dole officer on approval of a senior member of staff be able to request a drugs test? If drugs are found to be in the system of the person making the claim, they either have to join a rehab program until they are clean or have their 'job seekers' allowance stopped.

[Hockey_saint]

What's this got to do with "love on the dole"...if they have their job seekers taken away from them, what should they do, sit on street corners begging?

[Colinjb]

[TinaTurnerMode] What's love got to do with it? [/TinaTurnerMode]

[Ken Tone]

Should welfare recipients be randomly drug tested to continue to receive benefit payments

 

Blimey. I didn't realise the dole was that competitive! That's taking the Olympic spirit a bit far don't you think?

[Ken Tone]

Love on the dole .. a good book btw

[Tokyo-Saint]

What's this got to do with "love on the dole"...if they have their job seekers taken away from them, what should they do, sit on street corners begging?

 

Not begging - singing.

 

Take out the random bit, that was taken from a discussion I was having with someone else.

 

However, if it was suspected.... what do you think?

[Turkish]

No it's against their human rights and FC and saintandy will be along to bore us with all the nonsense behind it in a bit. If they want to spend their dole money on smack and booze then that's fine as they are creating job. Without them there would be lots of government workers made redundant with no dole office and job centre and no drug unit within the old bill. I anything unemployment and drug taking should be encouraged as it creates jobs in the public sector. As most dealers drive expensive cars also think of the additional revenue generated via fuel duty when they fill up their cars.

Edited 14 September, 2012 by Turkish

[Tokyo-Saint]

Love on the dole .. a good book btw

 

The winner!

 

If someone is a little death around the eyes and is claiming job seekers, should the government be able to intervene or should we just keep paying out and allow the wasters to just p1ss it all up the wall?

 

Where does all the money go? Straight, straight up their nose.

Edited 14 September, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint

[JPTCount]

considering its about £50 a week no real addict could sustain thier habit, plus u need to smoke or drink just get through the ordeal that is jsa.

 

maybe if advisors weren't such c*nts ppl wouldn't need to turn to substance abuse, and if they actually gave a **** they could help.

 

I have been unemployed, that coupled with singing on is possibly the most soul destroying experience I have ever gone through. I had ppl to give me a roof, feed me and support me, I can't imagine wot it's like if u have a mortgage, kids and other commitments n responsibilities.

 

this is a backwards step imo, money is not the be all and end all if being unemployed, it's the free time that eats away at you, and the feeling of worthlessness. if u drug tested these ppl and kicked them off the dole how do u think thier lives would pan out?

 

and for the record I have probably paid more towards the system by smoking for ten years than I took away by signing in for a year.

[Tokyo-Saint]

considering its about £50 a week no real addict could sustain thier habit, plus u need to smoke or drink just get through the ordeal that is jsa.

 

maybe if advisors weren't such c*nts ppl wouldn't need to turn to substance abuse, and if they actually gave a **** they could help.

 

I have been unemployed, that coupled with singing on is possibly the most soul destroying experience I have ever gone through. I had ppl to give me a roof, feed me and support me, I can't imagine wot it's like if u have a mortgage, kids and other commitments n responsibilities.

 

this is a backwards step imo, money is not the be all and end all if being unemployed, it's the free time that eats away at you, and the feeling of worthlessness. if u drug tested these ppl and kicked them off the dole how do u think thier lives would pan out?

 

and for the record I have probably paid more towards the system by smoking for ten years than I took away by signing in for a year.

 

Don't worry, you'll be able to claim some of it back on the NHS when you are older.

 

The question was not really aimed about people who are between jobs, had some bad luck etc. It is more like the people who are on Jeremy Kyle on a daily basis.

 

Living rough without any support was not the only option either, there was the chance to attend a rehab facility, then prove you were 'clean' and continue to get payments. It could also help flag people who are in the vicious cycle and help them out of it. It is not necessarily about finding them and punishing them.

[Sheaf Saint]

If drugs are found to be in the system of the person making the claim, they either have to join a rehab program until they are clean or have their 'job seekers' allowance stopped.

 

And what if somebody had been to a party at a mate's house where they passively inhaled some marijuana smoke? What exactly would be achieved by ordering them to attend a rehab course for a non-existent addiction?

 

You seem to be making the inference here that just because somebody tests positive for a controlled (HA!) substance they must therefore have a habitual dependence. I can assure you from personal experience this isn't the case. Plenty of people are able to take it or leave it in the same way that most people are able to moderate their alcohol consumption without becoming hopeless addicts.

 

If you really want to stop JSA claimants from spending their benefits on drugs/booze etc.. then the only way I can see is to give the benefits in the form of food vouchers. But what if they need to buy clothes? Or travel to job interviews? It wouldn't work that way either.

[Jones91]

Give them food rations, put them up in a shelter and sell all their council houses cheap to first time buyers.

[Bearsy]

maybe rather than giving out money the governments should just pay out benefits in crack? Them welfare people that are addicts could just smoke the crack, and them that are not addicts could sell the crack thus becoming employed members of society which would be good for unemployment figures?

[Tokyo-Saint]

And what if somebody had been to a party at a mate's house where they passively inhaled some marijuana smoke? What exactly would be achieved by ordering them to attend a rehab course for a non-existent addiction?

 

Clean John who passively went twos on the bong would be unlikely to be flagged up.

 

By the way, I am not saying I agree with this, just asking the question (someone has to now dune has gone).

 

Personally I like Bearsy's crack idea myself.

 

Also, travel to interviews is already paid for, you are given a kind of credit note. Clothes, I am not sure of, best ask Turkish.

[JPTCount]

Don't worry, you'll be able to claim some of it back on the NHS when you are older.

 

The question was not really aimed about people who are between jobs, had some bad luck etc. It is more like the people who are on Jeremy Kyle on a daily basis.

 

Living rough without any support was not the only option either, there was the chance to attend a rehab facility, then prove you were 'clean' and continue to get payments. It could also help flag people who are in the vicious cycle and help them out of it. It is not necessarily about finding them and punishing them.

 

imo smokers pay more tax than they cost the NHS, fat ppl will cost them more and we still don't have a fat tax.

 

but then wouldn't it cost more to put someone through rehab, with a large risk that they could just lapse once its over, especially if they are living in the same conditions and mentality they were before.

 

i would agree with food stamps etc on principle but in practice i don;t think it would apply, u would end up forcing ppl to spend x amount on food, and y amount on bills, and there's too many variables. it punishes those who don't abuse the system more than those who do.

 

and ultimately everyone gets their wad of money every other week, why should u give a **** what they spend it on? wud u prefer if i spent all my money on weed or went to lock fyne and got myself a seafood platter?

 

like i said before the problem lies with the system and the ppl who work it, its easy to blame the benefit fraudsters but it usually means a civil servant was dozing again, or could't give 2 sh*ts...

[scotty]

imo smokers pay more tax than they cost the NHS

 

 

 

 

Thats an opinion, but there are figures available. Why would successive governments have clamped down so hard on tobacco use if that really was the case?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Well what if, once someone who has been on the dole for say more than 2 years, is proven to have drugs in their system, their benefits are changed to food stamps, travel tokens etc until they can show they are clean?

[St Marco]

I actually watchef an interesting documentary about the smoking thing. If you think about it basically you got two groups. The smokers and the non smokers. The non smokers try and take away the rights of the smokers simply because they dont like it. Thats facism acording to the documentary.

No different from a group of people who dislike the colour blue and wanting it banned even though some people like it.

 

I imagine its the same people wanting those people drug tested.

 

Personally i couldnt care what they do with the money. But what i do know is that a friend who has been looking for a job while on benefits is really struggling to make ends meet. After reading all those daily mail reports of them living the high life (literally) i was shocked to see the total opposite.

 

Conclusion is there are a lot of angry people in this country and by giving them things to be angry about = £££ even if it isnt true.

 

If they bring it in then they should bring in tests for politicians and bankers. Like putting a banker on a set of scales and if they weigh more then a goose they are a witch and should be burned!!

[Deano6]

imo smokers pay more tax than they cost the NHS, fat ppl will cost them more and we still don't have a fat tax.

 

but then wouldn't it cost more to put someone through rehab, with a large risk that they could just lapse once its over, especially if they are living in the same conditions and mentality they were before.

 

i would agree with food stamps etc on principle but in practice i don;t think it would apply, u would end up forcing ppl to spend x amount on food, and y amount on bills, and there's too many variables. it punishes those who don't abuse the system more than those who do.

 

and ultimately everyone gets their wad of money every other week, why should u give a **** what they spend it on? wud u prefer if i spent all my money on weed or went to lock fyne and got myself a seafood platter?

 

like i said before the problem lies with the system and the ppl who work it, its easy to blame the benefit fraudsters but it usually means a civil servant was dozing again, or could't give 2 sh*ts...

 

Ummmm...there is tax on food!

[Ken Tone]

imo smokers pay more tax than they cost the NHS, fat ppl will cost them more and we still don't have a fat tax.

 

but then wouldn't it cost more to put someone through rehab, with a large risk that they could just lapse once its over, especially if they are living in the same conditions and mentality they were before.

 

i would agree with food stamps etc on principle but in practice i don;t think it would apply, u would end up forcing ppl to spend x amount on food, and y amount on bills, and there's too many variables. it punishes those who don't abuse the system more than those who do.

 

and ultimately everyone gets their wad of money every other week, why should u give a **** what they spend it on? wud u prefer if i spent all my money on weed or went to lock fyne and got myself a seafood platter?

 

like i said before the problem lies with the system and the ppl who work it, its easy to blame the benefit fraudsters but it usually means a civil servant was dozing again, or could't give 2 sh*ts...

 

I thought it was pretty much accepted that smokers cost the NHS more than the extra tax they pay, because of all their extra health problems -- it's not just the headline stuff like cancer, and all the heart and other lung problems etc. There are always exceptions of course, but in general they suffer much worse health than non-smokers in all sorts of ways, all of which cost the NHS money to deal with. Smoking is even the greatest cause of impotence in young men!

 

But anyway , if someone on £60 odd a week benefits can afford much in the way of drugs, they are a damn sight better at managing their money than I am!

[Ken Tone]

Just looked it up btw..

 

Lots of differing figures on the net , but see for example

 

[TABLE=class: MsoNormalTable]

[TR]

[TD] A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. This includes the £2.7bn cost to the NHS but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m).8

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 720, bgcolor: transparent]The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT).16 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn.17 The price of a pack of 20 premium brand cigarettes currently costs around £7.45, of which £5.80 (78%) is tax.

 

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edited 14 September, 2012 by Ken Tone

[JPTCount]

Ummmm...there is tax on food!

 

but I pay the same tax on a whopper as I do for a nut roast, no?

 

it's fat tax I'm on about not vat and hot food tax.

 

the smoking thing is all opinion really, depends how u read the figures

[dvaughanwilliams]

So a benefit recipient turns up to the office and tests positive for smack. They say, "No, more money." The guy still wants smack, but has no money. Wonder where they'll try and get the money? Go to more job interviews?

 

The cost of the extra police reports and insurance claims is probably greater than the dole money you're saving.

 

Addicts don't think rationally and change their behaviour based on whether they'll get their dole or not. It would cause more problems and solve none.