Australia proposes drugs tests for jobseekers

[Sean Hayden]

The Australian government has outlined plans to drugs test some benefit claimants as part of a two-year trial.
Under the proposals, those who test positive will have their welfare payments transferred to a card that can only be used to pay for basic items.

The plans will need to be approved in parliament. PM Malcolm Turnbull says the proposal is about looking after "fellow Australians".

The government would like to trial it in an area of south-west Sydney.

If approved, 15% of new jobseekers and youth allowance claimants will be forced to take a random drugs test.
If the claimant fails the test, most of their payments will be loaded onto an electronic "basics card" which can only be used to buy items such as food, rent and childcare.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41009590

-no early retirement in Australia then,

[Sean Hayden]

I can't believe they let them keep some money for food, rent and childcare. Christ, here they'd act like by using drugs you've forfeited your right to life.

[Jason]

Is there a big problem with people buying dope instead of paying for food, rent, or childcare? Seems like a draconian method to impose their morality on others to me.

[Sean Hayden]

It's likely to be the same people who oppose all "handouts" in general. A way to get their foot in the door?

[Brian Peacock]

It's just another step towards broadening the the political demarcation between the deserving and the undeserving poor.

[Jason]

Why does smoking pot make one undeserving?

[Brian Peacock]

Because it marks one out as a criminal. Criminals don't deserve state support.

[JimC]

It is still at the proposal stage, and may get shot down, as well as being possibly too difficult to actually implement. We shall see...

[Sean Hayden]

They tried it in Florida. I believe they found shit. A few other places still want to try it anyway.

Maybe if they hadn't spent the taxes subsidizing golf courses...

[Svartalf]

Because it marks one out as a criminal. Criminals don't deserve state support.

criminals might benefit from help to come back to honest society.

[Jason]

Because it marks one out as a criminal. Criminals don't deserve state support.

Right. I forgot Australia is still backward in that regard.

[mistermack]

The world heavyweight champ tested positive for cocaine and hasn't been allowed to fight since.

What the fuck? Who's business is it, if he took a recreational drug? So long as it's not performance enhancing, it should have been kept quiet. If he was on benefit, nobody would have cared.

He's an idiot, but he's not on any benefit and paying his taxes. It's not right. It's one law for the poor, but another for millionaire boxers.

[Sean Hayden]

Less than a gram has loads of poor people in prison. How much coke passes through a millionaires hands, a frat boy president?

One law for the poor and another for the rich indeed.

[mistermack]

Less than a gram has loads of poor people in prison. How much coke passes through a millionaires hands, a frat boy president?

One law for the poor and another for the rich indeed.

I don't think anyone can go to prison for testing positive. ( unless you're an airline pilot or summat ).
And the poor don't have to be randomly tested.
He was never done for possession or dealing.

[Sean Hayden]

Dealing, that's laughable too. If they can make it stick, you're a dealer. An expensive lawyer might help with that though.

On testing vs possession, the law should take into account more than what is immediately obvious. Asking how much coke o'le Bushy boy put up his nose ought to be considered fair game when sentencing a crack head whose pipe's residue is all you've got.