Tony Abbott talking about mandatory drug testing for dole recipients

[D.T.]

Can we go back on the original topic of discussing funding drugs for welfare recipients instead of politics?

 

[datto]

Oh...I thought the topic was about drugs, booze n woman?

 

[Doovalacky]

Working in Industrial where I have had to take drug tests routinely to maintain my job. Some times as often as weekly for a **** test I would have no issue if they went this way.

Take the dole off them for a positive and give them a basic voucher/card for food, rent and basic necessities such as water service.

 

[DavidMc]

Guys - we don't need to speculate what would happen if drugs were decriminalised.

We can just look at the real world results:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal?s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

So if treating drug addiction (be is cocaine, heroin, nicotine, alcohol, prescription pills - all drugs regardless of their legal and social acceptance) as a health problem drastically reduces the amount of usage, number of addicts and related STD infection rates, crime, funding of criminal gangs/cartels and the horrific drug wars that make Iraq/Afghanistan look like a pub brawl in comparison, what effect would you have if you did the opposite?

We need to be flexible enough to get over our old school ways of thinking (which are obviously not working, despite the truckload of $$$ we spend), view people with these issues with compassion and take a non-emotional/rational view at what does work.

Do we look at overweight people and just think they simply lack the required amount of desire be a healthy weight? Or is there more to it? Do we think they like being overweight?

For a fascinating look at this world wide problem, including interviews with recreational users, problem users, law enforcement, social workers, street level dealers, mid level dealers and high level dealers (hell knows how they manage to get these people on camera, even if they are all voice changed/balaclavas!), checkout this amazing show - http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

So if treating drug addiction (be is cocaine, heroin, nicotine, alcohol - all drugs regardless of their social acceptance) as a health problem drastically reduces the amount of usage, number of addicts and related STD infection rates, crime, funding of criminal gangs/cartels and the horrific drug wars that make Iraq/Afghanistan look like a pub brawl in comparison, what effect would you have if you did the opposite?http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/

David, the problem with your argument is that you're being logical and rational, as well as presenting evidence to back up your argument. That'll never work in a society where most people insist on being told how to think.

 

[willair]

Rarely do I agree with anything from Abbott, but I agree 100% with this.

Difficult to arrange as it needs support from the states, but a great thing if it succeeds.

You want free money? No problem, just ensure you can pass a random test.

It would be complicated but possible,but myself it would not work all they would is do is find some way to bypass the test,but why not start at the top down all the Government people that control billions of tax dollars at the flick of a pen,test them before they make that call,THC stays in the system for up too 120 days noway around that one,,would work just like the billiard ball story..

 

[DavidMc]

If we want to rake in more government revenue why are we discussing an idea that would cost far more to implement than any savings it would provide and could only lead to more homelessness and crime (even though it might please the today tonight viewer inside us all)? It just doesn't make any logical sense - regardless of your views on drugs.

Wouldn't it be a far better idea to look at the Google's and Apple's of the world and start taxing them appropriately on their profits they make from Australians?

Last year it was revealed Google’s Australian arm paid just $74,000 in tax in 2011, despite an estimated $2 billion in revenue from Australian ads.

 

[tobe]

Two reasons I like to quote %ages ;

• I like to quote undisputable facts. Provides you a definitive rock to grab onto amongst the ocean of wishy-washy drivel passed off as opinion.
• It decides what type of Govts we have.

Both in my humble opinion are important.




The percentages I quote for known parties are published and verified fact. It's got nothing to do what "I think".




Why thank you. Only took 30 seconds to accurately calculate. You could have done the same if you'd thought your crazy idea through for 30 seconds as well.




Just rolls off the tongue so easily doesn't it, just a lazy 7 Billion more.

You didn't suggest where that was coming from ??




Where does one start ??

• How about the extra $ 7 Billion price tag for a start.
• How about the single pensioners who've just taken a massive haircut ??
• How about the disabled pensioner who's just taken a big haircut ??
• How about the other myriad pensioners who were receiving the money that you are now proposing to throw at millionaires and billionaires ??

I'm sure you would, but what you'd prefer as an individual doesn't count for a whole lot. The decision makers in our country very much care what the constituents think as a bulk people.

Carrots are orange. Its an undisputable fact, but irrelavant to this discussion, as is your facts on the percentages of people who may or may not support any given opinion.

Opinions change. Lets go through some recent examples. The rebublic/monarchy debate, climate change, Euthanasia, gay marriage. All of these issues have changed their support percentages over recent years.

Now, are we supposed to shut down discussion of any of these topics because they dont have majority support? Pretty lame argument if you ask me....

Unfortunately majority opinion doesnt pick governments. Our electoral system just doesnt work that way. There have been at least 2 recent federal elections where the losing party had majority support yet still lost the election, as did the recent SA state election. Further having a majority opinion on a particular topic does not correlate to a specifc policital party at any given time. Did Julia get some opinion polls done before she changed her mind on the carbon tax? Did Tony and Joe do some market reseach into high income earners wanting a temporary tax increases?

Again, just because a government holds one opinion, has no bearing on the validity of an argument.

The 7 billion line was a deliberate trap. Where would I find it?

Theres lots of possibilities. end negative gearing, limit SMSF balances to something close to what retired people actually need to live a comfortable life, have PPORs assessable for land tax, end the diesal rebate, or maybe just instigate a new tax for high income earners.

Obviously none of these are remotely palatable in the current political cycle that is ruled by short term greed and fear. Therefore no one should every mention them. SHHHHH.

Most of the pensioners are only receiving a part pension because they have been advised to hide the rest of their money in super and other vehicles by the financial advice industry, so they will just have to deal with a drop in income. Low asset pensioners and disability pensioners need topping up perhaps, obviously their current income is diferent to unemployed benifits because they have diferent needs? Or is unemployment benifits currently less as a punishmnet/incentive?

I think people would react well to milliionaires receiving a citizenship payment. People arent as silly as everyone thinks. People know already that millionaires receive subsidies from taxpayers. Its not how they became millionaires, but laws are written by the powerful, and millionaires are powerful.


Having a universal payment will incentivise people to work in my opinion.
It will build peoples self esteem when they badly need it. They can rest assured that their fellow countrymen are supporting them in their useful lives, rather than jealous and vindictive of what they do with their limited time on earth.

At worst it wont do any harm.

 

[Hoffy]

Most of the pensioners are only receiving a part pension because they have been advised to hide the rest of their money in super and other vehicles by the financial advice industry.

So you think those that have accumulated wealth should get a full pension?

There are so many part pensioners because of the riculously generous assets test limits. It is simply absurd that a couple can achieve a pension payment when they have liquid assets outside the family home of over $1.1million.

 

[tobe]

So you think those that have accumulated wealth should get a full pension?

There are so many part pensioners because of the riculously generous assets test limits. It is simply absurd that a couple can achieve a pension payment when they have liquid assets outside the family home of over $1.1million.

I agree. My opinion is that instead of the current system, everyone should receive a universal payment. Dazz was haslling me on how current pensioners would react to a lessening in their income and that was my response.

 

[Ideo]

Guys - we don't need to speculate what would happen if drugs were decriminalised.

We can just look at the real world results:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7



So if treating drug addiction (be is cocaine, heroin, nicotine, alcohol, prescription pills - all drugs regardless of their legal and social acceptance) as a health problem drastically reduces the amount of usage, number of addicts and related STD infection rates, crime, funding of criminal gangs/cartels and the horrific drug wars that make Iraq/Afghanistan look like a pub brawl in comparison, what effect would you have if you did the opposite?

We need to be flexible enough to get over our old school ways of thinking (which are obviously not working, despite the truckload of $$$ we spend), view people with these issues with compassion and take a non-emotional/rational view at what does work.

Do we look at overweight people and just think they simply lack the required amount of desire be a healthy weight? Or is there more to it? Do we think they like being overweight?

For a fascinating look at this world wide problem, including interviews with recreational users, problem users, law enforcement, social workers, street level dealers, mid level dealers and high level dealers (hell knows how they manage to get these people on camera, even if they are all voice changed/balaclavas!), checkout this amazing show - http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/

How dare you come in here with your facts and research and present a coherent, logical argument?

FWIW I completely agree. The criminilisation of drug users does nothing except mean more people are imprisoned and societal impacts are made worse.

 

[DavidMc]

My opinion is that instead of the current system, everyone should receive a universal payment.

It would be interesting to see how much we'd save with a simpler system.

Politically though, the idea just wouldn't float. 'Rich people' should get less, even if we have to spend more to ensure this doesn't happen.

 

[Beanie Girl]

If you have your own money to spend, you can knock yourself out buying as much cocaine, ice, speed, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, alcohol as you can possibly consume.

But if you are a welfare recipient, how dare you buy drugs with money you don't have?

So the sin in the Gub's eyes is not the drug-taking. Otherwise, everybody will be tested for drugs and sent for drug rehabilitation programs to stamp out drug use. The greater sin in the Gub's eyes is you not having money... period.
You are a 'leaner', not a 'lifter'.

So the message is clear - in this country, if you have money, you can do whatever you want and the Gub will happily help you make more money. Tax loopholes, 130 billion dollars of tax concessions in various forms, superannuation, trusts, negative gearing, company tax, corporate welfare. If you have money, more will be given unto you...

If you have no money, woe betide you, what little you have will be taken away from you...

But I guess a lot of us on this forum don't have to worry, we are lifters not leaners!

 

[D.T.]

Here we go again with your "it should be fair for everyone" communist mantra again.

Should welfare recipients be able to spend money as they please?
No!
Because
a) Its tax payers money so there should be some input in how its used
B) its a safety net to allow people to get by whilst searching for a job asap. Not for them to sit around being druggies with.
C) their full time occupation should be finding a job and drugs dont assist in this endeavour
D) other occupations require drug testing, bludger can be on that list too

 

[Corey Batt]

If you have your own money to spend, you can knock yourself out buying as much cocaine, ice, speed, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, alcohol as you can possibly consume.

But if you are a welfare recipient, how dare you buy drugs with money you don't have?

So the sin in the Gub's eyes is not the drug-taking. Otherwise, everybody will be tested for drugs and sent for drug rehabilitation programs to stamp out drug use. The greater sin in the Gub's eyes is you not having money... period.
You are a 'leaner', not a 'lifter'.

So the message is clear - in this country, if you have money, you can do whatever you want and the Gub will happily help you make more money. Tax loopholes, 130 billion dollars of tax concessions in various forms, superannuation, trusts, negative gearing, company tax, corporate welfare. If you have money, more will be given unto you...

If you have no money, woe betide you, what little you have will be taken away from you...

But I guess a lot of us on this forum don't have to worry, we are lifters not leaners!

It's not the sin of not having money. The issue at hand is that welfare is to provide the essentials to survive, not your next hit of smack or points for the crack pipe.

 

[Hoffy]

If you have your own money to spend, you can knock yourself out buying as much cocaine, ice, speed, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, alcohol as you can possibly consume.

But if you are a welfare recipient, how dare you buy drugs with money you don't have?

So the sin in the Gub's eyes is not the drug-taking. Otherwise, everybody will be tested for drugs and sent for drug rehabilitation programs to stamp out drug use. The greater sin in the Gub's eyes is you not having money... period.
You are a 'leaner', not a 'lifter'.

So the message is clear - in this country, if you have money, you can do whatever you want and the Gub will happily help you make more money. Tax loopholes, 130 billion dollars of tax concessions in various forms, superannuation, trusts, negative gearing, company tax, corporate welfare. If you have money, more will be given unto you...

If you have no money, woe betide you, what little you have will be taken away from you...

But I guess a lot of us on this forum don't have to worry, we are lifters not leaners!

Let's put aside the absurdity of suggesting that anyone is free to buy the illegal drugs you mentioned if one uses their own money, and focus on the mooted drug testing.

Firstly the govt has confirmed they won't be proceeding (queue broken promises response, don't bother). Secondly this was a story based on a review of the NZ system where only people with a "job required" drug test are tested. That is anyone who would be required to pass a drug test for employment whether from the ranks of the dole or the employed. No discrimination there whatsoever.

Then they get warnings and retests and if they still fail there are implications for their payments.

So the sin in the governments eye is not keeping your side of the bargain. They (NZ) will support you with income as long as you do a number of things, one of which is be job ready, that is pass a test if required.

Pretty fair deal if you ask me.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

a) Its tax payers money so there should be some input in how its used

The overwhelming majority (over 95%) of those welfare recipients were taxpayers in the past and will be again in the future

B) its a safety net to allow people to get by whilst searching for a job asap. Not for them to sit around being druggies with.

Since they contributed funds to help pay for the benefits they receive, who are you to tell them what to do with their money?

D) other occupations require drug testing, bludger can be on that list too

There will always be unemployed people, always. So everyone that is currently unemployed is a bludger?

D.T. if you don't like it, go and live in the U.S. where your capitalist, ultra-conservative wonderland has resulted in epic crime rates, a drug problem that eclipses ours, an education system that benefits only the rich, a poor health system, that again, benefits only the rich and murder rampages seem to now be the norm.

Our system isn't perfect, but it's one of the best in the world.

 

[Beanie Girl]

Here we go again with your "it should be fair for everyone" communist mantra again.

D.T. I wouldn't know if fairness is mentioned in the Communist Manifesto if it jumped up and bit me in the bum!
Never read the Communist Manifesto and don't intend to.
'Fairness' is not a concept limited to specific ideologies or religions.
'Fairness' is a universal concept, universally sought and hungered by all humans regardless of race, culture or religions.
Unfortunately, inequality exists because we are not all born equally wealthy or equally endowed or blessed with the same physical health, intelligence, gifts or abilities.
Many Western democracies strive to reduce inequality to produce a better quality of life for its citizens, to develop each citizen to their fullest potential - I'm thinking of countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany

I was merely observing a common thread running through the proposed but 'dead in the water' mandatory drug testing for newstart recipients (And yes, Hoffy, I do realise that the idea was briefly toyed with by our Govt then cold storaged. The idea may come back again) and other proposed changes in the Budget.

The common thread that binds all is that if you have money, your days of comfort will number many
but if you don't have money and you depend on the government for a small stipend, life is going to get harder and harder and inequality more firmly entrenched. You will be less and less able to live a life of dignity.
e.. let's take the proposed pension indexation to CPI instead of average male wages in 2016, eligibility changes for the Seniors health card, the co-payment of $7 to see a GP, the proposed retirement age to 70 by 2035, tertiary student fees to increase significantly/loans paid back at 10 year bond rates, changes to single parenting payments, inability to get newstart for 6 months at a time for under 30s, and the list goes on

Yet generous Corporate welfare abounds - certain companies pay 8% tax instead of 30%, Google, Apple, ebay pay very little tax
Superannuation tax concessions are intact, negative gearing, capital gains tax rules untouched (great for us investors!)

Just because I am a 'have' does not mean I should not be concerned about the 'have-nots'
just because I benefit from the govt not touching certain rules, does not mean I cannot acknowledge the inherent inequality or injustice of certain Budget proposals

as Warren Buffet astutely observed in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

 

[Hoffy]

I was merely observing a common thread running through the proposed but 'dead in the water' mandatory drug testing for newstart recipients (And yes, Hoffy, I do realise that the idea was briefly toyed with by our Govt then cold storaged. The idea may come back again)a

See that's the problem. It was never what you say it was. It was never "proposed" and it was never "mandatory drug testing for new start recipients". You seem to want to argue a philosophical view using exaggerated or purposely deceitful bogeymen as your means to make a point.

 

[BLTN]

I haven't read this whole thread - got about half way through and saw lots of logical pro arguments and no real logical con arguments.

For those that are opposed, why exactly are you opposed? I genuinely want to know.

Invasion of privacy? Surely not, has to be more than that. Personal drug users yourselves? Perhaps.

What are the real objections to this? Is it just opposition for the sake of opposition?