# Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers...



## DB008 (28 August 2012)

There has been a little bit of talk on this (mostly rumours) throughout the years.

After working in the mines in WA for 5 years on various mine-sites, with 'almost' monthly (IF NOT MORE) 'random' drug testing, l can say for once and for all, this is one policy I 100% agree with. 

ABOUT TIME! If I need to pass drug tests to earn an income on a mine site, why not drug test people who get benefits at my expense???? As a whole, l think that Australia is just way too generous in helping these dole bludgers...


Google search on the matter

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=782327&vId=3449833

and...


> A NORTH Queensland Coalition MP wants the unemployed to face drug tests before they can receive the dole.
> 
> The Liberal National Party's George Christiansen, the Member for Dawson, said that if mine workers in Mackay had to submit to drug testing, so should the unemployed.
> 
> ...




And...

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8523614/drug-tests-for-dole-recipients


----------



## poverty (28 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*

So what would we actually do with those druggy dole bludgers cut off from their safety net?  I doubt they're willing to just lie down and die on the streets without a fuss, more likely they'll be breaking into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet.


----------



## DB008 (28 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*



poverty said:


> So what would we actually do with those druggy dole bludgers cut off from their safety net?  I doubt they're willing to just lie down and die on the streets without a fuss, more likely they'll be breaking into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet.




Really?

Is that what you think?

Cut these idiots off, and they'll break into my home?


----------



## CanOz (28 August 2012)

Just guessing but perhaps some would respond to rehab??


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*



poverty said:


> So what would we actually do with those druggy dole bludgers cut off from their safety net?  I doubt they're willing to just lie down and die on the streets without a fuss, more likely they'll be breaking into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet.




So what's the answer, keep giving them money. It will never be enough as the drug use increases, so does the tollerance, so the more drugs required for the same buzz. Then they break into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet,LOL
Maybe they should be offered government subsidised, mining company provided on site training. If they don't take it they don't get the dole after a predetermined time. 
It would save us having to bring in all these workers from overseas, because we don't have any workers here, apparently everyone is busy.LOL


----------



## poverty (28 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*



sptrawler said:


> So what's the answer, keep giving them money. It will never be enough as the drug use increases, so does the tollerance, so the more drugs required for the same buzz. Then they break into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet,LOL




It would really depend on what drugs we're talking about and what kind of doleys.  Ice and Heroin addicts are generally out of control and they'll be comitting crimes whether they're on the dole or not.  Criminals like these, once caught and convicted should actually be put in jail for meaningful amounts of time.

However, what the hell would be the point of kicking some doley off payments if for example he was positive for cannabis?  A drug that stays in your system for months and has a lot of fairly functional, recreational users.  I think it's these kind of fringe 'druggie' kind of unemployed scumbags who previously weren't actually real criminals that would end up out comitting violent crimes and robberies if their payments were cut off.  As I said before, they aren't going to be happy to just starve, we do as a species generally have some kind of survivalist instinct.  If we don't provide for people who can't/won't work (and that element will always exist) at least some kind of minimal safety net we can expect trouble IMO.

So yes, sometimes it is more convenient for us all to just keep giving them money, just give them very minimal amounts.  It's a lot cheaper than jails.


----------



## numbercruncher (28 August 2012)

Why stop at folks on unemployment benefits - nail anyone on Government hand outs - sickness, retirees etc - alls fair hey ? Maybe extend it to smokers and alcohol drinkers too - that should appease the self rightious " my money " crowd !


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2012)

In principle I agree with random testing for drugs which may cause a hazard in the workplace.

I strongly disagree however when an employer attempts to prohibit their employees from using drugs prescribed by a registered doctor. Likewise drugs (eg tobacco smoked whilst not at work or drinking coffee) which do not pose a hazard whilst on the job.

I know of one employer which, according to media reports at least, wanted to test for literally all drugs. That I strongly disagree with on the basis that it's none of their business unless it is something which actually poses a hazard at work.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Why stop at folks on unemployment benefits - nail anyone on Government hand outs - sickness, retirees etc - alls fair hey ? Maybe extend it to smokers and alcohol drinkers too - that should appease the self rightious " my money " crowd !




Isn't that what the recently introduced welfare card is meant to do?


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*



poverty said:


> However, what the hell would be the point of kicking some doley off payments if for example he was positive for cannabis?  A drug that stays in your system for months and has a lot of fairly functional, recreational users.  I think it's these kind of fringe 'druggie' kind of unemployed scumbags who previously weren't actually real criminals that would end up out comitting violent crimes and robberies if their payments were cut off.  As I said before, they aren't going to be happy to just starve, we do as a species generally have some kind of survivalist instinct.  If we don't provide for people who can't/won't work (and that element will always exist) at least some kind of minimal safety net we can expect trouble IMO.
> 
> So yes, sometimes it is more convenient for us all to just keep giving them money, just give them very minimal amounts.  It's a lot cheaper than jails.




Well what is the point of bringing in overseas workers, to erode our pay and conditons, while we support able bodied Australians to live on drugs and welfare.
Maybe you have heard of a new programme it's called rehab. It involves forcing people to take on programmes that helps them overcome their habits and become productive members of society and gives them a degree of self worth.
No your probably right, just give them money and keep importing Chinese labor to take our kids jobs, because a lot of our adults want to get stoned.Yeh


----------



## Julia (28 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Isn't that what the recently introduced welfare card is meant to do?



What is this welfare card?  I've not heard anything about it.  What's different to the ID any recipient of government benefits has always had?

Re the question:  I'm sure all the people on the measly $245 p.w. so called Newstart allowance are a bunch of useless, druggie bludgers.  None of them, of course, are actually genuine people who have worked hard most of their lives and then been made redundant in their 40's or 50's, are they?  
Do you seriously think anyone capable of getting a job would instead elect the ignominy of trying to survive on such a tiny amount?  It wouldn't even pay the rent on a one bedroom flat, let alone provide for other necessities like the provision of food.  They are also, on this amount, supposed to be able to dress appropriately for job interviews and get to said interviews.

And as far as the blithe assertion that any drug addicted people should roll up for rehab, what facilities can you actually point to which provide such a service?   We don't exactly have them in every town with places for everyone.   

Presumably the reason for drug testing mine workers is based on safety.

I agree absolutely that the taxpayer does not want to be subsidising indolence, but I'm not sure what random testing of all dole recipients would achieve, other than a further blow to their already miserable situation.


----------



## DB008 (28 August 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I strongly disagree however when an employer attempts to prohibit their employees from using drugs prescribed by a registered doctor.




I have never heard of this Smurf. How can any employer ban/sack someone for using a 'prescribed drug from a doctor'. 
Sounds highly illegal.
I'm sure if someone was terminated for returning a positive result, with a doctors certificate, you would have grounds for unfair dismissal.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

Julia said:


> What is this welfare card?  I've not heard anything about it.  What's different to the ID any recipient of government benefits has always had?.




You may have been away when this proposal hit the news, here is a link.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/welfare-card-pays-out-on-poor-20110806-1igid.html


----------



## Julia (28 August 2012)

Thanks, sptrawler.  Touchy subject.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Re the question:  I'm sure all the people on the measly $245 p.w. so called Newstart allowance are a bunch of useless, druggie bludgers.  None of them, of course, are actually genuine people who have worked hard most of their lives and then been made redundant in their 40's or 50's, are they?
> Do you seriously think anyone capable of getting a job would instead elect the ignominy of trying to survive on such a tiny amount?  It wouldn't even pay the rent on a one bedroom flat, let alone provide for other necessities like the provision of food.  They are also, on this amount, supposed to be able to dress appropriately for job interviews and get to said interviews.
> 
> And as far as the blithe assertion that any drug addicted people should roll up for rehab, what facilities can you actually point to which provide such a service?   We don't exactly have them in every town with places for everyone.
> ...




Trying to answer the above:
1.There are a lot of genuine people on newstart allowance that should be on more money. However there are a lot of young people on newstart that should be positively encouraged to seek employment.
Three of the areas with the highest youth unemployment in W.A are Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah. These suburbs are located next to the industrial area of Perth and are not in some remote outback town without facilities. Do I think the young are living in dos houses having a great time on the dole and drugs. In a word yes.

2. Well Twiggy Forrest is implementing a training and mentoring scheme for indigenous Australians, that from all accounts is doing well. 
Also going from the sublime to the ridiculous and saying all drug addicts should have to roll up for rehab, would be a very labor like reaction.
However to turn a blind eye and just keep forking out the money, would be equally as stupid.

3.Re the drug testing: I will give you the benefit off the doubt and presume that was rhetorical. It was too silly to deserve an answer.

4. No, I as a taxpayer do not want to be paying taxes to support able bodied young people, living on the dole within 60k's of Perth. While at the same time we are importing foreign workers on the premise we don't have people.


----------



## Tightwad (28 August 2012)

drug test people who watch "A Current Affar".


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

Tightwad said:


> drug test people who watch "A Current Affar".




Never seen it, is it that bad? Thank god for Tivo


----------



## Tightwad (28 August 2012)

it really is the dregs, was sposed to be a story on this topic tonight - i accidentally saw a promo for it


----------



## pixel (29 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you seriously think anyone capable of getting a job would instead elect the ignominy of trying to survive on such a tiny amount?




Not *every*one, Julia; but there are definitely *some*, who have been born into a second-generation welfare environment and see their only hope of getting on by "working" for the baby-bonus. What a flop that was!
And if you visit some of the surf spots or skateboard rinks, you'll find plenty of healthy young adults, whose sole ambition is to become a "professional surfer" or full-time "skateboard entertainer". 

What is being done to break that cycle?
Over here in W.A. the government is running an ad campaign to lure youngsters into a building apprenticeship. What do they use as bait? A souped-up V8 ute, the tray of which is filled with a throbbing sub-woofer! Sending the message that, as an apprentice, you can earn enough for a down payment on a $50,000 car, for which you then have to keep working the next 5 years or longer just to pay it off. 
But a year later, you'll find the utes parked at the beach because the apprenticeship wasn't "fun" enough.

Life education and preparation for self discipline and responsibility for your support has to begin at home and continue to be emphasized at school. That's where we're letting our kids down - and have done so for at least one generation.


----------



## breaker (29 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*



poverty said:


> So what would we actually do with those druggy dole bludgers cut off from their safety net?  I doubt they're willing to just lie down and die on the streets without a fuss, more likely they'll be breaking into your house or beating you over the back of the head to get your wallet.




And that,s when I shoot em


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

their is complaint about the cost of welfare to taxpayers, how much would it cost to test x thousand people a month... this is a slippery slope, whats the next hoop they have to jump through, they cant be fat? they cant buy alcohol? what happens when this extends to the general population?

the principle here is stupid, your either against welfare, which I am, or for it with no restrictions. You create a second class of citizen by allowing and not allowing them what to spend money on. The illegality of drugs has nothing to do with it..


----------



## pilots (29 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> their is complaint about the cost of welfare to taxpayers, how much would it cost to test x thousand people a month... this is a slippery slope, whats the next hoop they have to jump through, they cant be fat? they cant buy alcohol? what happens when this extends to the general population?
> 
> the principle here is stupid, your either against welfare, which I am, or for it with no restrictions. You create a second class of citizen by allowing and not allowing them what to spend money on. The illegality of drugs has nothing to do with it..




Well the NT is telling its people what they can spend there welfare on and it also tells them what shops they must use.


----------



## nomore4s (29 August 2012)

Surely drug testing X amount of people to find a small % of people abusing drugs on the dole would cost more then it would save.

And what to do with the people that test positive? Cut them off from the dole? Send them to rehab(who pays for that? - and what a waste of money if they are occasional cannabis users)? Then what? We end up with drug users with no money living on the streets causing more issues which in turn costs more money.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

pilots said:


> Well the NT is telling its people what they can spend there welfare on and it also tells them what shops they must use.




nothing like a society with different rules for different people...


----------



## pilots (29 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> nothing like a society with different rules for different people...




Well its working OK, the woman get to see some of the dole B4 the old man spends it all on beer, looks like its going to happen in WA as well.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Trying to answer the above:
> 1.There are a lot of genuine people on newstart allowance that should be on more money. However there are a lot of young people on newstart that should be positively encouraged to seek employment.
> Three of the areas with the highest youth unemployment in W.A are Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah. These suburbs are located next to the industrial area of Perth and are not in some remote outback town without facilities. Do I think the young are living in dos houses having a great time on the dole and drugs. In a word yes.



OK, perhaps some are.  But the OP's link said:


> A NORTH Queensland Coalition MP wants the unemployed to face drug tests before they can receive the dole.
> 
> The Liberal National Party's George Christiansen, the Member for Dawson, said that if mine workers in Mackay had to submit to drug testing, so should the unemployed.



This clearly suggests everyone who is unemployed should have to undergo drug testing.

Others have pointed out the cost involved.  That would be true.  I'm more concerned with the implied insult to people who are already doing it tough, many of whom - however hard they try - won't be able to find a job because of their age, even though they may have worked hard all their lives until being made redundant.

So if instead you only want to drug test a certain group of people, how would you draw the box around these?
What would be the criteria?
What would you do with those who tested positive for any drug?



> 2. Well Twiggy Forrest is implementing a training and mentoring scheme for indigenous Australians, that from all accounts is doing well.



And good on him for taking such a great initiative.
That's incidental to the main topic of this thread, though.



> 3.Re the drug testing: I will give you the benefit off the doubt and presume that was rhetorical. It was too silly to deserve an answer.



Are you referring to my suggestion that drug testing for mine workers would presumably be as a safety consideration?   I certainly don't know anything about mines, but would have thought if people are so tested then the reason for this would be that you wouldn't want drug-affected individuals operating machinery.
Happy for you to explain why I'm wrong about this.


----------



## pilots (29 August 2012)

Julia, I know on the rigs we had to test for drugs, if we had a accident our insurance company had the workers tested, if they had drugs in them the insurance company would not pay out.


----------



## medicowallet (29 August 2012)

*Re: Drug Testing the Dole Bludgers....*

I doubt this proposal would pass a cost benefit analysis, and the "health" dollar would be better off screening some extremely forgotten conditions.... prostate cancer anyone??  (Oh I forgot, that is a condition that affects males)


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

Jeez, I would have thought an initiative could be started, by checking traffic and drug related court records. Then cross reference that with welfare payments, isn't that what computers are good at.


----------



## DB008 (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez, I would have thought an initiative could be started, by checking traffic and drug related court records. Then cross reference that with welfare payments, isn't that what computers are good at.




Yes. 
Computers.
But now that the NBN is be arriving (soon...), l'll be able to get my pr0n 15 times faster. 
Priorities SP, priorities, LOL. 
(Just kidding with above comment)

Cost of a urine drug test?
Here is one from the States.
$3.49 (for 100 and up) but l'm sure if you ordered 10,000 (or more) you could bargain a better price (maybe I should clarify that; private enterprise could - Government, probably not, they'd probably pay $15 per kit)
http://www.drugtestsuccess.com/instantdrugtest-5p-adip.htm
Or get something from China even cheaper.

Should all dole recipients be tested?
No.
However, making it random would deter people, just like mine sites.

(Google - more kits here - starting at $2)

Will this ever get off the ground - not a chance.....


----------



## starwars_guy456 (29 August 2012)

I struggle to imagine drug testing for dole recipients. Apart from the feasibility of testing everybody and the cost involved, I cannot see a constitutional basis for the Commonwealth imposing such a thing on dole recipients.

Also, what will this course of action achieve? My impression is that hard-core unemployed only consist of a minute percentage of welfare people - the majority lack qualifications or possess the work experience that employers are looking for.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Yes.
> Computers.
> But now that the NBN is be arriving (soon...), l'll be able to get my pr0n 15 times faster.
> Priorities SP, priorities, LOL.
> ...




Your wasting your time Danny, there is more interest in finding excuses, than finding answers.
By the way, can you tell me if they random drug test for safety, or to check if employees need more?


----------



## DB008 (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Your wasting your time Danny, there is more interest in finding excuses, than finding answers.
> By the way, can you tell me if they random drug test for safety, or to check if employees need more?




It's a union/mine-site agreement. 
Safety. Like having a alcohol test before every shift (on most sites now days). Reading has to be 0.000 or 0.00 on the sites where I worked. 

The unions are pushing to get away from urine tests -> to saliva swab tests, like what the police use.
Fair enough l say, because what happens during R'n'R, is your time.

http://www.alcolizer.com/products/alcolizer-wm-wall-mount-series






(I think the highest I blew once was around 0.163. However, l had a few days off and was not working at the time, so no danger to anyone. The hang-over hurt though...)


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> It's a union/mine-site agreement.
> Safety. Like having a alcohol test before every shift (on most sites now days). Reading has to be 0.000 or 0.00 on the sites where I worked.
> 
> The unions are pushing to get away from urine tests -> to saliva swab tests, like what the police use.
> Fair enough l say, because what happens during R'n'R, is your time.




There you go Julia, your knowledge of mine drug testing has been expanded.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

Julia said:


> So if instead you only want to drug test a certain group of people, how would you draw the box around these?
> What would be the criteria?
> What would you do with those who tested positive for any drug?




Well as you suggested they are probably finding it very difficult to manage on the meagre amount being given at the moment. Therefore to be sympathetic to your view, we should probably give them a big rise in payments.LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> It's a union/mine-site agreement.
> Safety. Like having a alcohol test before every shift (on most sites now days). Reading has to be 0.000 or 0.00 on the sites where I worked.



I've been tested at mine sites without ever having worked on one. They even test visitors (for alcohol) before going underground.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've been tested at mine sites without ever having worked on one. They even test visitors (for alcohol) before going underground.




All larger work places are introducing "fit for work" policy, where it is prudent of the employer to have some form of drug and alchohol testing in place. If not the insurance company could claim a degree of negligence on the employers part.
At this point in time it appears to be focused on large employers. However one would think it will become mandatory in all work places over time.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> There you go Julia, your knowledge of mine drug testing has been expanded.



Thank you.  As I thought.  Still have no idea why the suggestion that testing on mine sites was "too silly".


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

pilots said:


> Julia, I know on the rigs we had to test for drugs, if we had a accident our insurance company had the workers tested, if they had drugs in them the insurance company would not pay out.




Thanks, Pilots, for confirming what I thought would be the case.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Thank you.  As I thought.  Still have no idea why the suggestion that testing on mine sites was "too silly".




Well I suppose if you read your post #11 it seemed as though it was a statement. 
Therefore I assumed it was rhetorical, if not, I couldn't think what else drug test at mines would be carried out for.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> All larger work places are introducing "fit for work" policy, where it is prudent of the employer to have some form of drug and alchohol testing in place. If not the insurance company could claim a degree of negligence on the employers part.
> At this point in time it appears to be focused on large employers. However one would think it will become mandatory in all work places over time.




the death of me then..


----------



## prawn_86 (30 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> All larger work places are introducing "fit for work" policy, where it is prudent of the employer to have some form of drug and alchohol testing in place. If not the insurance company could claim a degree of negligence on the employers part.
> At this point in time it appears to be focused on large employers. However one would think it will become mandatory in all work places over time.




Yet another slow erosion of freedoms. Why should the vast majority be penalised/tested in order to find the minority that do cause issues? Same as all the terrorism laws enacted after Sep 11.


----------



## DB008 (30 August 2012)

This just came across my facebook page.....


----------



## pixel (30 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yet another slow erosion of freedoms. Why should the vast majority be penalised/tested in order to find the minority that do cause issues? Same as all the terrorism laws enacted after Sep 11.




Methinks you got that R's about, Prawn.
The "vast majority" are not the drug-free welfare recipients, but the hard-working taxpayers that don't want to see their hard-earned squandered on bums, who prefer to be stoned to pulling their weight. The only person that "owes you a living" is you.
And if you had ever sat in a plane that landed in Cuba or Mogadishu instead of your booked destination, you'd probably be less concerned about some inconvenience at check-in.

*The problem with a tolerant society lies in the fact that it becomes suicidal once it extends its tolerance to those hostile elements that claim tolerance from everybody, but are dead-set intolerant and inflexible when it comes to furthering their own criminal ends.*


----------



## Tink (31 August 2012)

I agree with drug testing. 
Companies have a right to know that you arent putting yourself and others in danger in their time.
Same as on the roads.

If it extends to welfare, then so be it.


----------



## IFocus (31 August 2012)

Tink said:


> I agree with drug testing.
> Companies have a right to know that you arent putting yourself and others in danger in their time.
> Same as on the roads.
> 
> If it extends to welfare, then so be it.




I have seen the numbers (in industry and manufacturing) around before and after drug testing as far as safety goes in the work place the change was nothing in the all the measure levels repeat nothing.

What it is used for is the trojan horse to have a work force submit to the will of the company and the flow on HR polices that follow.

As for mining that was a different environment / culture / demographic and with the introduction of longer hours and longer consecutive days worked there had to be dramatic change and I think initial drug testing was warranted particularity for alcohol. 

Some of the best operators in the gold mining years ago that I saw were also major pot heads not that I thought it a good idea at the time.

As a supervisor you always knew who was fit for work and who wasn't, just these days supervisors seem really weak and unprepared to take on serious issues.

As for testing dole bludgers its only good for a headline.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> I have seen the numbers (in industry and manufacturing) around before and after drug testing as far as safety goes in the work place the change was nothing in the all the measure levels repeat nothing.
> 
> What it is used for is the trojan horse to have a work force submit to the will of the company and the flow on HR polices that follow.
> 
> ...




first post I can agree with you on


----------



## Julia (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> first post I can agree with you on



Not actually the first post of IF's I've agreed with, but I definitely do on this one.


----------



## cynic (1 September 2012)

Tink said:


> I agree with drug testing.
> Companies have a right to know that you arent putting yourself and others in danger in their time.
> Same as on the roads.
> 
> If it extends to welfare, then so be it.




I've had the misfortune of encountering a number of heroin addicts in my time. Their lack of honesty coupled with their ingenuity (in avoiding positive detection) were two of their more notable qualities.

One of the tricks used to evade detection was the procurement (via "helpful" friends/relatives) and storage of clean urine. This urine would subsequently be used to fill a prophylactic for insertion into an appropriate body orifice, just prior to undergoing a supervised urine test.

Given my observations, I fail to see how anything productive can result from drug testing of such individuals. 
The more likely outcome from a regime of drug testing would be the further humiliation of numerous honest welfare claimants, many of whom are already struggling to keep a roof over their heads whilst at the same time trying to maintain their credibility (and self esteem) in the face of the frequent stigmatisation that many indignant taxpayers (and prospective employers!!) so generously provide.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2012)

cynic said:


> I've had the misfortune of encountering a number of heroin addicts in my time. Their lack of honesty coupled with their ingenuity (in avoiding positive detection) were two of their more notable qualities.
> 
> One of the tricks used to evade detection was the procurement (via "helpful" friends/relatives) and storage of clean urine. This urine would subsequently be used to fill a prophylactic for insertion into an appropriate body orifice, just prior to undergoing a supervised urine test.



Yes, the ingenuity of addicts is unlimited.  Addiction involves the pursuit of the habit above all else,
certainly above employment.



> Given my observations, I fail to see how anything productive can result from drug testing of such individuals.
> The more likely outcome from a regime of drug testing would be the further humiliation of numerous honest welfare claimants, many of whom are already struggling to keep a roof over their heads whilst at the same time trying to maintain their credibility (and self esteem) in the face of the frequent stigmatisation that many indignant taxpayers (and prospective employers!!) so generously provide.



Exactly.


----------



## Tannin (1 September 2012)

This is a proposal of mind-blowing stupidity. 

Never mind all the other excellent reasons why it's the dumbest idea since they invented dumb, just think about the economics of it. 

Assume that it costs _nothing_ to produce the test kit. (It won't, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to organise the people you need in the right places at the right time. (It won't, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to pay the people administering the test. (It won't, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to pay the people who run the administrative appeals process which you must provide if you don't want the whole scheme to come crashing down the moment the first victim appeals to the High Court. (It won't cost nothing, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to shuffle all the paperwork around. (It won't, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to integrate all of that with the existing system. (It won't, but let's pretend.)
Assume that it costs _nothing_ to do all the dozens of other things you'll need to do to get this up and running. (It won't, but let's pretend.)

*Assume that the whole massive operations costs absolutely nothing*, and assume that you catch some people. Now, what are you going to do next? 

You can't just stop their benefits - if you kick them off the dole, you are going to need to do something to make sure that they don't simply turn to crime - and you can be 100% certain that if they can't get a job because they are unemployable, they _will_ want to eat, and crime is their only way of doing that. That's going to cost you vastly more than the dole ever did. Or you could just put them in jail ..... and that will cost you _ten times_ as much as the pittance the dole provides. 

This is stupidity of truly mind-blowing proportions.


----------



## sptrawler (8 October 2018)

Probably time to resurrect this thread, it will give Danny something to get his teeth into and also I saw this article in today's paper.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...r/news-story/ced7e2049b176182c6c383c01cdd2e24

It is interesting that we have rolled out the welfare card, yet still have a problem getting people to move to the bush, to get a job.
I was at the pub on Friday, for 'happy hour' as you do, and was talking to a young English backpacker couple, they were saying getting work outside of Perth wasn't an issue. They are trying to extend their visa to stay on.

Also of interest this thread was started six years ago, just shows how slow it is to get something happening. 
It also shows how the drug culture has changed, meths are easily made and readily available, they are 1000 times worse than 'pot' and will ruin peoples lives. IMO


----------

