When you consider some employees are obliged to provide urine/blood samples during their working life, why shouldn't people on welfare be under similar restraints?

My view is that drug testing is reasonable - taxpayer £'s should not be used to fund illegal activities. Passing this would work twofold. One, we could weed out the druggies. Two, those who still wished to "earn" their giro would clean themselves up and thereby save money since they're not buying drugs anymore!

It already irks me that these people thrive off wasting my hard earned money and then complain because they're not getting enough.

I’m afraid your hypothesis carries very little weight, and it seems to me that you have put very little thought into the argument.

The day-to-day reality is that the vast majority (obviously, there are going to be exceptions, as with everything in life) of recipients of any state benefits don’t use their benefits to fund their drug habits, if they have one. On the whole, benefit recipients who have a drug habit (or indeed any other expensive addiction, such as smoking, alcohol, compulsive shopping, whatever) use their benefits to live on, and fund their habits by other means (e.g. theft, fraud, drug dealing, working on the sly, running up huge credit card debts, prostitution, to name but a few – all of which are another issue altogether). The current rate of (for example) JSA is just over £60 a week and isn’t even enough to live on - take at least £20 a week off that for fuel bills for a start, to get an idea of how far benefits go towards day-to-day living.

Finally, how would one determine which benefit recipients to test for drug use? Test them all? Testing people for drug use would probably cost more tax ££’s than you’d care to part with. To be honest, it is also unlikely that our tax money has gone towards funding anyones drug habits – work out how much tax working joe average pays each year, then work out how much working joe average (and his dependents) get out of the system. The amount of tax that the average reasonably healthy single person pays barely covers their own medical expenses each year.

One could equally argue this issue with regard to most things - why should my tax money fund military action in the Middle East, why should my tax money fund GordonBrown flying to som useless summit, why should my tax money fund the repayments on a car (tv, computer) belonging to someone on benefits when I don't even have a car. Etc, etc, etc.

^^^ what 206bones said.

Also, the only time I have ever known of anyone being demanded to take a drugs test for work purposes is that to be under the influence of drugs would be dangerous for their work eg lorry drivers.
I have to say also having worked with drug addicts, you are very naive if you think the only people who have a drug addiction are social security benefitters, I've known a bank manager on heroin (weekend recreation), an alcoholic lawyer dying from a pickled liver but still working and others as well as JSA recipients picking up their giro in a cannabis induced haze etc.
Some people fund their habits out of their earned cash.
Tell me something, do you ever go out and get pissed? Smoke a bit of weed now and again?
And can you honestly say that you do not owe one single penny on a credit card or have a bank overdraft?
Actually, no dont tell me the answer to that because I really dont need to know, but pause for thought over that one.
If you owe nothing and get every single thing you own or consume with the cash in your pocket that you earned then I take my hat of to you, well done.

It also just occurred to me that randomly testing benefit recipients for illegal drug use smacks of treating each and every one as a potential and possible social security scrounging druggie.


Oh and by the way - as to weeding out the druggies - News flash, if a person is registered with their doctor as having an alcohol or drug addiction, they can get extra disability allowances, permanently written off work as 'chronically sick' and get help in other ways ie free prescription drugs, medical help, go the top of most councils housing waiting lists - but the trade-off is that often they end up with a life threatening illness or two and never really become well enough to work full-time ever again anyway.
Before anyone says "its their own choice, serves them right" etc. please remember until you walk in someone else's shoes its impossible to judge where the blame lies.
Compassion goes alot further than criticism.

My bf had to pass a drugs to test to get a job as an IT manager. Not much danger involved there.

However, signing on is a risky business. Every fortnight I have to squeeze thru a bunch of drunken drugged up drop-outs hanging around outside the jobcentre. It's humiliating and degrading when tired and over-worked benefits staff treat you as just another alcholic junkie.

On the other hand, I do agree with you Alice and 206bones, random drugs tests is going too far. I point blank refuse to be treated like cattle because of someone else's behaviour. Being on the dole is demeening enough without degrading me and others, even further.

I do find it hard to be sympathetic Alice. As you say, these people get all the help possible and go to the top of the council housing list. I finished my job because of my foot (and other physical problems). I cannot get training and I cannot get disability, and if the job centre find me a job that I can't work around my college, I have to drop college. I am trying to better my chances and get nothing. Why should I be sympathetic to those that do little to help themselves.

I know from past friends with addictions that not everything is black and white, but I also had enough friends in my teens that came from good backgrounds that took drugs because they were bored, and got enough pocket money to afford it. Or the ones that take it because of peer pressure. Sorry, but if it's peer pressure, it's still that persons decision. Find different friends if thats the kind of friends they have.
_________________
"Always look on the bright side of life..... tetum tetumtetumtetum....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

sorry alice im well aware that drugs problems are not exclusive to the underclass but the point i was making was in relation to the unemployed.and there are a lot of companies who drug test randomly - i get them now and again at my work.

Im slightly confused by your point Al.
So you stop paying them benefits because they take drugs? They then commit more crime to fund their lifestyle and drug use affecting you and me and everyone else. They then go into the criminal justice system - police, courts, legal aid, duty solicitors - prison. Paid for by...... taxes.

Stopping benefits is not the answer. What about their kids?
Its a massive debate.
Education and assistance is key.

I agree Al, but since when has a sharp shock worked on a drugs user?

And my point from earlier, take them off benefits... who feeds the kids?

I agree, taking the kids off them is a powerful tool and often the threat works. they still need education, monitoring, testing regularly and a key drugs worker to assist them to get them clean. I can see random testing as a good initiative, it would highlight problem families, I just cant see any welfare state stopping benefits as a weapon.[/quote]

I stand by what I said.
Chronic drug users are most often registered with their doctor and have a plethora of social and medical workers to fight their corner when the shit hits the fan or they need/want something.
I am defending no one.
Its a vicious circle that wont get stopped until the Manufacturers of the drugs (cartels in colombia, crack factories in the uk etc.) are stamped out - rid the world of the drug, there will no longer be any drug addicts.
Simple mathematics that will simply never happen!
You dont need to do random drug testing on benefit recipients, just make the doctor hand over his patients' medical records.
Of course there are plenty more who are not registered with their doctor, but they are not the ones sapping the nhs.
Rehab success rate is something like 10%.
Take their kids off them til they get clean?
Do you have any idea how many drug addicts actually make any effort to get their kids back once they are in care?
The harsh reality is that they then suddenly dont have this little person draining their money and emotions - the average hardened drug addict lives for his or her next fix, a child isnt exactly top of their priority list. The way they care for the poor little sods (or lack of care) is testimony to that.
And if you take the child away, well....who do you think pays the foster parent their wage (yes you get a wage for fostering, they call it a grant or summat, but wage it is) and the running costs of council run childrens homes?
Personally I think 'weeding out druggies', stamping down on the users and making them suffer - by taking away their children, benefits etc. - is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
This govt should have gotten tough on drug use about half a century ago, and now its too late.
We live with the consequences of liberalism and human rights and personal choices.

We have opened a can of worms. There is no easy answer to this one!

I dont think doctors will hand over patients records, even the police have to have a persons consent to seem them... unless they apply through the courts.

My own answer is to bring back the drugs squads they have disbanded. get as much of the stuff off the streets as you can. It doesnt solve the problem but it would certainly make me feel better.

I agree with 90% of the stuff that has been said so far as long as its being directed at the addicts and abusers. I am a recreational drug user, I am not addicted, I know my limits and I also know exactly where they come from and who makes them. I can guarantee no one gets hurt in the process.

To me all the millions of people who abuse alcohol at the weekend and the people who need health care due to smoking related illnesses are a far greater threat to tax payers than me.

Also lets not forget the drugs that the tests don't pick up like GBL. I know a few police officers that are addicted to that stuff.