Printable View
Simple question.
I think we should. I don't think it's fair to make taxpayers contribute towards the select ones that do drugs. I know that welfare is around to help people. So since I pay taxes, I want to be sure that my small amount goes towards good causes and actually helps people out. Not to help them buy drugs.
Lemme know. Definitely don't like the abuse of the system that some people think is okay.
Nope because the % of welfare recipients actually on drugs is probably very small and innocent people in need of financial aid for basic living standards shouldnt have to go through that humiliating process! And then what if they are found to be spending it on drugs... they get nothing?
Should we drug test students receiving financial aid? Lots of my friends and students at uni waste their student grants and loans on getting drunk every other day and buying weed
Perhaps better systems in place so that those found to be wasting money away on drugs have their benefits reduced!
wait are you just accusing us of all being druggies? and image the cost of doing all these tests?
The cost of doing that would be far more than the benefit payments themselves :P especially considering admin of it all and working out how it would apply to people on very short term benefits (for example you could be written off work for just a couple of days, would you make people in that situation do a drug test?) and really wouldn't do much to help. If someone's cheating the system for drug money then they're already a criminal, so stopping their payments will just drive them into harder crime
Yeah, either follow the rules or don't get the people's help is what I think tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
Not sure about the first sentence but it is a very good point. But yeah, I'd be willing to have a compromise with the second sentence instead of completely cutting someone off. But yes, severe reduction.Quote:
Should we drug test students receiving financial aid?
Perhaps better systems in place so that those found to be wasting money away on drugs have their benefits reduced!
Testing someone for something isn't the same as accusing. Just like court.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuthOnToast
No, if you have good reasoning and tell the gov. that you promise to be off, then you don't. But if you are using welfare as a career then you need a test.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Perhaps it could be a state issue? So for instance if the state wants to do it then they could use their own budgets. (Only applies to US regarding states but you get the point)Quote:
The cost of doing that would be far more than the benefit payments themselves
If your not accusing people then why test them? or what about instead of punishing them maybe give them help?
Ultimately even if you severely reduce instead of completely cutting off benefits it will just cause poverty to increase = crime, homelessness, inequality, etc. which nobody likes to see. More should be spent on drug addiction programmes!
No, it's a waste of money and everyone enjoys a bit of ganja here and there.
Don't know why (I guess illegal only?) drugs are really singled out anyway. Why not alcohol? Should we just ban luxuries in general?
EDIT: Also would like to add, even if someone is buying heroin because they're an addict, they will find the money with or without state aid.
That's not how that would work. It's like stopping at a DUI checkpoint. You are not being stopped because you are under the influence. You're being stopped lawfully by the cops under a law. You're not assumed to have drank any beer. Rather, they are checking to be sure. You chose to be on the road. You are subject to moderation. Just like welfare - if you choose to receive taxpayer assistance then you best be spending the money correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuthOnToast
Yes, I think you should be either offered to go to rehab or don't at all.
- - - Updated - - -
Haha I don't deny that but taxpayers don't like to spend money on other people's drugs, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
It's because the companies are too powerful. Too much money for the government. I know where you're coming from.Quote:
Don't know why (I guess illegal only?) drugs are really singled out anyway. Why not alcohol? Should we just ban luxuries in general?
EDIT: Also would like to add, even if someone is buying heroin because they're an addict, they will find the money with or without state aid.
And yes, I do agree with your edit completely.
For someone supposedly conservative you're asking for a lottttttt of state intervention here :P
Why should my taxes be spent on drugged up losers? If you want to give them money then by all means do so via charity but don't force the rest of the population to hand yet more money over to these people who are selfish and have already cost us a fortune.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
With welfare I certainly think there should be incentives to get back into work, like for instance now if somebody has been sent for an interview and they turn up in trackies and aren't co-operating then the employer reports this back to the welfare office. From when Iain Duncan Smith was Work and Pensions Secretary it defintely seems to have improved. Perhaps drug tests could be introduced for those who have been on benefits for no apparent reason for over a year - with actual court action following if they test positive. But such a policy will only work when there's an *actual* War on Drugs not the de facto decriminalisation we have now.
That's because the welfare system is a state/federal issue. Part of my paycheck goes to it. I want my government to be concerned about who gets that money and who doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Yeeeeees but surely you'd rather have a reduced welfare system in general, rather than making it an even more bureaucratic office full of red tape and administrative imposition. What you're pushing for in this thread is veeeeeeeeeeeeeery left wing lmao
Perhaps the idea of the government being involved is. If that's what it takes then I'd proudly be labeled as left on this issue. It's bs the way it is now and I hope it changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Regardless, liberals seem to think that we should pay for the druggies as well so that's the difference I guess.
Entirely different though, and loans are obviously paid back with interest, so not really the same as comparing it to free money given to druggies/alcoholics who have no interest in finding a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
The way you're going on you may as well argue for a checklist of things people receiving welfare can spend their money on and what they can'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Landon
Even if you took away welfare from people using drugs there would not be major savings as it's a minority and as others have said it would cost more to drug test them.
I don't really see how anyone in highly developed countries, whatever politics you support, can justify poverty by removing peoples benefits! The money people on benefits receive isn't even a lot (despite the crap you will read in papers like the Daily Mail)
Well not really seeing as students also get grants and scholarships as well, and it's unlikely everyone is going to pay back their loans fullyQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish
That's exactly what we need. I don't want the welfare recipients out buying drugs, beer, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
Taxpayers don't generally like paying tax full stop. What's worse, losing a few million on people spending benefits on drugs or losing more than that by spending it on monitoring those on benefits? It's senseless outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
You honestly thing benefits have improved under IDS & the Conservatives? Many stories about people on JSA being sanctioned for ridiculous reasons and disabled people who have lifelong conditions being reassessed over and over. Also, aren't you meant to support a small state, yet you're basically advocating an enlargement of the state by wanting a "war on drugs"?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
If we used that kind of thinking then everyone would be on welfare. And everyone would be lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Absolutely. Yes there have been cases of clearly disabled but on the whole it has given a real kick up the arse to those permanently on benefits. I hear stories myself of people who are on them and it is becoming more and more tiresome to stay on them to the point where it is easier just getting a job than staying on them. And that's the point of making life difficult for them, a boot up the arse.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
When benefit scroungers **** off the Tories for it you know they're doing the right thing.
Not everything revolves around money, often laws must be enforced for a moral point than for financial reasons. It's morally reprehensible to tax decent people who work to pay for the drug habits via benefits or healthcare of junkies.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Sure, but you can't have drug decriminalisation with free state healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
One or the other, and I think the public would pick keeping the NHS over letting junkies even more off the hook.
Yes, not everyone will fully pay it back but the majority will and the interest they pay will cover the losses from those who don't. And even then those who don't pay it back fully will pay something towards it (unlikely you're going to go 40 years of under £17k Salary?). Aren't grants completely removed now and replaced with loans?Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
Few points I can make to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
One is, surely with the point I presented, there would be no welfare and no tax?
Second is, most people (in the UK) do actually receive some kind of welfare.
Third is, universal income is a thing which is being researched into currently and so far there has been nothing to suggest it would cause people to be lazy and a lesser productivity.
You realise you have to provide evidence of applying to some arbitrary number of jobs every week? It's also not just for the unemployed, but also those who don't work enough hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Again, bringing morals into an argument it has no place in. But OK I will play your game. It is morally reprehensible to have to tax decent people even more of their hard earned money so they can constantly check that those on benefits aren't spending it on whatever. You see how bogus the moral argument is?Quote:
Not everything revolves around money, often laws must be enforced for a moral point than for financial reasons. It's morally reprehensible to tax decent people who work to pay for the drug habits via benefits or healthcare of junkies.
I mean, you can since we have had 2 very widespread and harmful drugs on sale for many years. In addition, outright legalising and allowing the selling of marijuana, for instance, has proven to be very effective in generating tax and isn't a health hazard.Quote:
Sure, but you can't have drug decriminalisation with free state healthcare.
One or the other, and I think the public would pick keeping the NHS over letting junkies even more off the hook.
Maybe we should do lie detectors on people who receive benefits and ask if they are spending their money on takeaways instead of home cooking? x Sick of my taxes going towards someones weekly £30 Chinese food!
1 - Which one? Apologies, can't remember what you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
2 - Are a lot of people low income in general? Or how does it work there?
3 - I guess the thing for me is just making sure that people aren't living on a career of welfare. I have a some family members that live off of welfare and make no attempt to better themselves and spend it on smokes which really drives me up the wall.
make them go on Jeremy Kyle for their benefitsQuote:
Originally Posted by lemons
1, doesn't matterQuote:
Originally Posted by Landon
2, various means of welfare. Aside from the obvious unemployment and disability benefits, there's standard child benefits available to everyone with children (soon to have limits put in place); free childcare at ages 2-4 if you meet certain criteria; various tax credits if you earn (or in some cases, your and/or your partner) earn below a certain threshold; "free" healthcare etc. It is also arguable if the UK state pension is welfare. Most people will access at least one of these at some point.
3, I can't speak for the USA, but it's really not that easy to do in the UK as much as the tabloids here like to make out, especially when the new child benefit restrictions come into place. The only problem I have with benefits is that morbid obesity is apparently a legitimate disability. And if people really don't seek to better themselves, then that's a whole issue in itself.