Should welfare recipients be subjected to drug tests?

[brenden]

Silly suggestion and underlying suggestion imo, really.
"Shit, just got made redundant at the factory. Might have to go talk to Centrelink. How embarrassing, but I have to keep the kids fed."
"Hi, welcome to Centrelink. Oh, that's a pity about the factory. I understand, seeking help is hard... Oh, by the way, here's a cup to piss in."

"Excused" for a drug addiction makes it sound like a cardinal sin.

Mao - my intention is not to attack you (it might seem that way), but I remember a debate not long ago re: Tasmania phasing out tobacco and making it illegal. If I could super-summarise and paraphrase your contention "That's a civil rights violation and people should be able to smoke if they want to" whilst a point against yours was essentially "it's costing taxpayers lots of money when all these fuckers get cancer et al"...
So, why is the civil rights of tobacco smokers more important than the desires of taxpayers if the desire of taxpayers is more important than the civil rights of welfare recipients? If that question is not applicable, what's the point of difference between the prior argument I've mentioned and this one?

There was lots of drug education at my school. Probably to match the amount of drugs.

[Mao]

They're wrong.

But what gives you the right to dictate how my taxes are spent? My taxes at the end of the day are my contributions, you would be the last person who gets a say in how it's used.

Mao - my intention is not to attack you (it might seem that way),

All good,

but I remember a debate not long ago re: Tasmania phasing out tobacco and making it illegal. If I could super-summarise and paraphrase your contention "That's a civil rights violation and people should be able to smoke if they want to" whilst a point against yours was essentially "it's costing taxpayers lots of money when all these fuckers get cancer et al"...
So, why is the civil rights of tobacco smokers more important than the desires of taxpayers if the desire of taxpayers is more important than the civil rights of welfare recipients? If that question is not applicable, what's the point of difference between the prior argument I've mentioned and this one?

Those two cases are very different, because of where the money comes from. In fact, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for cigarette-related problems (that should be a matter of private health insurance), but that's a different point.

In the case of cigarettes (extendable to any drugs, whether or not they are currently legal), citizens should have a right to purchase them with their own money and consume them. If I have the bank account to support it, I should be able to take up any drug addiction I want to.

In the case of drugs for welfare recipients (extendable to cigarettes and alcohol), welfare recipients are living off the gratuity of other taxpayers (or at least this is some of us interpret it). If I'm helping a mate get back onto his feet by giving him some money, I would be enraged if he did not use the money constructively.

These are my views, I don't generalise them to the entire population, but a lot of the population do share at least the latter sentiment, and this will be one of the things we will have to consider come election time. I'm not seeking the 'absolute' best moral action here or some kind of moral ideal, that's not the point of democracy. I would like the view of the taxpayers reflected in the legislations.

[brenden]

Fair enough. I appreciate your strict view on democracy. However, there's always potential for a majority to cause something ludicrous. To take it to an extreme, I'm sure a majority of voters in early 20th century America would have been mighty happy for all sorts of atrocities to happen to the black folk, but the actions would still be atrocious. For every welfare recipient to be drug tested would be a violation of civil rights, regardless of a majority opinion, and I guess when we shift importance from individual and community rights we're damaging the value of living in a democracy.

Actually I suppose if as you applied you just had to lick a cotton bud or something that would be efficient and not so bad. This would be good to determine who needs further support. Hm. Still brings up the issues of recreational drug use V. someone being an addict.

[ninwa]

As a taxpayer, no.

Receiving welfare is not an easy life. You barely have enough to live on as it is. If the recipient chooses to spend their money on drugs rather than food (because honestly there isn't enough for both) then so be it. That's their choice and if "my money" (I take issue with this concept, I don't think it's "my money" at all but society's money, but that's another debate) is going to their drug addiction, that's the price I pay for living in a society where people are free to make their own choices.

[Eriny]

The point of welfare isn't to fund entire lifestyles of people over their lifespan. In practice, that does happen, but the majority of people on payments are on payments in the short-term. Quite a lot of Australians receive welfare payments at some point in their life: about a third. We aren't talking about a small niche group of people, we're talking about ordinary Australians who just need a bit of help. Source: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/labour/1_final-report_RIS.pdf

In that sense, it's not really meaningful to talk about people on welfare as a stable group or as a certain 'type' of person. People lose their jobs and need some income support sometimes, that's life. There's no real reason why you'd immediately come to the conclusion that those people are on drugs (though, that said, quite a high proportion of Australians have admitted to drug use).

In this debate, then, it would be less inflammatory and would make more sense to talk about people who are on welfare in the long-term. Drug addiction might be more likely to be a problem for this group than for the general population (or, likewise, other problems which makes it difficult to find and keep work - lack of education, laziness, lack of self-belief, undiagnosed mental illness, etc.). But, even if you can show statistical correlation, how can you justify making people submit to drug testing on the fact that there happens to be a correlation? That's not evidence that any one person is taking drugs and is a complete invasion of privacy.

Even ignoring the human rights issues involved in mandatory testing, what do you do with the information that someone on welfare is in fact using drugs? I don't think that cutting their payments is necessarily a good way to get them to stop using, they can always commit crimes or go into prostitution or whatever. Moreover, forcing them to quit might work in the short-term, but ultimately one has to be able to make a choice to quit in order to truly quit. Otherwise, once they have a job and are back to freely spending money the way they want, they're just going to go back to using (and maybe lose their job as a result?). That is, if they aren't in jail (which is also a huge cost to taxpayers). Offer drug rehab services, for sure (actually these services are already available), even mandatory services if you know for a fact they are using (based on good evidence, rather than just the supposition that they're on drugs because they're on welfare), but don't take away someone's choice to quit drugs either.

Anyone who has been on welfare knows that it's a quick lesson on managing a budget and prioritising certain things above others, as you won't be able to afford everything you want. If "society" (taxpayers, the government, whoever) decides to dictate what welfare receipients should prioritise, then the important skill of managing a tight budget within the confines of one's personal tastes totally fails to be developed. Managing money is part of what makes an adult an adult, they should at least get a chance to try and do it for themselves if they can.

I don't really like the fact that money I paid in tax might be being used to buy drugs or KFC or whatever, but everyone has different requirements in their lives and if that's what they need to tide them over until they get their lives back on track, so be it. No doubt I spent some of my youth allowance on stuff that other people wouldn't approve of either *shug*. The point is that people should be allowed to make decisions throughout their adult life, including when they're on welfare payments (which usually isn't for long), it's part of treating everyone with dignity.

[Planck's constant]

1. No, welfare recipients should not be subjected to drug testing any more than other citizens.
2. Welfare is neither charity or donations from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. The wealth of the nation belongs to all, taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. Welfare is what we give to those who are not able to fend for themselves. The old, the disabled, the disadvantaged.
3. That's why we don't have riots in the streets.
4. It's the Australian way.

[Professor Polonsky]

But what gives you the right to dictate how my taxes are spent? My taxes at the end of the day are my contributions, you would be the last person who gets a say in how it's used.

Your taxpayer money will be spent according Federal appropriation bills. You get no more say than I do, thankfully. And thankfully as well, our politicians haven't stooped so low in populism to implement this ridiculous idea.

[Mao]

In that sense, it's not really meaningful to talk about people on welfare as a stable group or as a certain 'type' of person. People lose their jobs and need some income support sometimes, that's life. There's no real reason why you'd immediately come to the conclusion that those people are on drugs (though, that said, quite a high proportion of Australians have admitted to drug use).

In this debate, then, it would be less inflammatory and would make more sense to talk about people who are on welfare in the long-term. Drug addiction might be more likely to be a problem for this group than for the general population (or, likewise, other problems which makes it difficult to find and keep work - lack of education, laziness, lack of self-belief, undiagnosed mental illness, etc.).

I agree with this, but I think the distinction is not the most important thing here. Distinguishing between different groups is a matter of implementation. For example, I don't think there is any point applying this to disability-related support or pensions. On the other hand, youth allowance should definitely be subjected to drug testing above all other welfare (it is perhaps the most abused welfare of them all). The crux of the issue is what do we do with welfare abuse.

I will address rehabilitation in another post, but for now I want to focus on the notion of welfare.

Still brings up the issues of recreational drug use V. someone being an addict.

Recreational drug use is a luxury, much like gamling is a luxury. Someone on welfare shouldn't be in either. If there is a way to prevent welfare recipients from gambling, it would be subjected to the same reasoning here.

2. Welfare is neither charity or donations from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. The wealth of the nation belongs to all, taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. Welfare is what we give to those who are not able to fend for themselves. The old, the disabled, the disadvantaged.

Can you tell me who generates this wealth of the nation?

Take natural resources (perhaps the easiest to address), how should the wealth from this be distributed? What margin of profit should go to the business which put in the hard work in digging up the resources? What margin of profit belong to citizens who just happened to be there?

On the other end of the spectrum, take intellectual property. How should the wealth from that be distributed? Why should any of that wealth belong to the nation? You may mention education is publicly funded, which enables my creation of intellectual property. But I would be happy to pay back the exact figure spent on my education, and more to sponsor future education. That, however, does not obligate me to contribute more, nor does it entitle anyone else to wealth that did not derive from the fruits of their labor.

Can you then tell me, what is this wealth of the nation? More precisely, do able-bodied welfare recipients contribute to this wealth? Whence comes this entitlement they have on the 'wealth of the nation'?

Welfare is not necessarily a gratuity, but it is not an entitlement. I fully support helping someone to get back onto their feet, so that they can be productive in the society again. The intention here is clear: to help them become productive again. It is definitely associated with expectations and trust, it should be a contract, and it's more like a loan from society than a 'right to live in dignity'. If the recipient has no intention of reaching that goal, or the recipient wants to abuse the gratuity, I would seriously reconsider before giving that person a second or third chance.


I don't know how this contributes to the debate:

Your taxpayer money will be spent according Federal appropriation bills. You get no more say than I do, thankfully. And thankfully as well, our politicians haven't stooped so low in populism to implement this ridiculous idea.

Of course I have no more say than you do, our votes count equally. However, I don't see anything inherently wrong with my views, at least not in the sense that a statement can be mathematically wrong or is a logical fallacy. Unless you subscribe to some absolute morality, you must concede that we have different moral standpoints.

I acknowledge that my viewpoint is harsh (though I am arguing the extreme case here to highlight the fundamental moral differences, my actual actions lie somewhere between the two extremes). You calling it ridiculous, however, is an attack without basis.

[ninwa]

Recreational drug use is a luxury, much like gamling is a luxury. Someone on welfare shouldn't be in either. If there is a way to prevent welfare recipients from gambling, it would be subjected to the same reasoning here.

There is, though. Require all establishments offering gambling services to check ID. Register welfare recipients' ID on a universal system and require such establishments to turn away all patrons whose ID matches with that of the government welfare recipient register.

But a cost-benefit analysis of that would surely come up seriously on the cost side. Where do you draw the line on placing (even more) conditions on welfare?

Where do you draw the line between luxury and utility? Should welfare recipients be required to purchase home brand goods only? Surely the branded bread that is $2 more expensive than the Coles brand bread is a luxury. Should we be withdrawing welfare from those who dare to purchase a newspaper with their welfare money, because it's technically a luxury i.e. not essential to everyday life? Where does this policing of how people spend their money stop?

Can you tell me who generates this wealth of the nation?

Taxpayers who are liable to tax. The government decides how much and on what things each taxpayer should pay tax on. There is and never has been a direct relationship between the amount of the payment and the benefit to the taxpayer.

The nature of taxation is that you cannot expect that it would necessarily directly benefit you. If you want to live in a every-man-for-himself society, then you should find a country that follows that principle and move there. I can't think of any country that has successfully employed that model, though, and I can't imagine it would be a very nice place to live.

Welfare is not necessarily a gratuity, but it is not an entitlement. I fully support helping someone to get back onto their feet, so that they can be productive in the society again. The intention here is clear: to help them become productive again. It is definitely associated with expectations and trust, it should be a contract, and it's more like a loan from society than a 'right to live in dignity'. If the recipient has no intention of reaching that goal, or the recipient wants to abuse the gratuity, I would seriously reconsider before giving that person a second or third chance.

A drug-taking person is not necessarily barred from being a productive member of society. I do not see any payments in this list that do not have associated conditions, whether it be seeking/continuing employment, education or otherwise. I do not believe that someone who takes drugs recreationally but is also spending their time actively searching for work should be barred from receiving such assistance. We may have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, but it's not at 0%.

That, however, does not obligate me to contribute more, nor does it entitle anyone else to wealth that did not derive from the fruits of their labor.

No, but I would hope that most people would prefer to live in a more egalitarian society where some of the wealth from the more fortunate can be redistributed to the less fortunate.

[Professor Polonsky]

Nina basically wrote what I was going to say when I had the time to, just one thing though

We may have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, but it's not at 0%.

You wouldn't want 0% unemployment. Full employment is commonly regarded as ~3%, any lower than that and you're going to have inflationary problems as you won't have any job seekers, meaning that to attract workers you're going to have to raise wages.

Anyways, let's consider what welfare actually is. If we define it as some sort of direct monetary payment by the government to a citizen, which of course is funded via taxation. Well then... How many Australian families receive the FTB? You'd be drug testing millions of people.

So wait a moment, you'd say. I'm only talking about those poor people, you know, the dirty stinky ones who're good-for-nothing lazy drug addicts! Uhm. Okay then.

Oh, and what about pensioners? Are we to drug test them as well? Ha.

We could broaden this even further. Welfare often refers to the deliverance of goods and/or services as well, such as food stamps or public housing to those who cannot afford them. Or education, yeah. I think we should drug test all parents with kids in the school system. Those lazy parents could be using their drug money to pay for their kids own education!

Ooh, what about that student aid? Or that ridiculous HECS interest-free loan, on which the government basically loses money? Drug-test all university students! Surely you wouldn't want the government using your money to fund some drug addict's education. And I'm sure none of those university students have been smoking joints lately, right?

Speaking of financial assistance, how about all those corporate tax breaks? I say we drug test them CEO's as well! They're probably all on coke, anyway.

So, a moment of seriousness. The vast majority of people you'd want to drug test, those lazy bummers on the dole, are actually simply the product of cyclical employment patterns. 90% of them will be working in a job sometime soon. Now some of those, y'know, might have had something to drink recently, or smoked cannabis, or maybe are even struggling with an addiction to a hard drug (tobacco?). That's not a reason to pull the plug on them, and restrict them from finding a job again.

[ninwa]

You wouldn't want 0% unemployment. Full employment is commonly regarded as ~3%, any lower than that and you're going to have inflationary problems as you won't have any job seekers, meaning that to attract workers you're going to have to raise wages.

TIL, thanks

(I am not an economics student as you can probably tell lol)

[Russ]

No, but I would hope that most people would prefer to live in a more egalitarian society where some of the wealth from the more fortunate can be redistributed to the less fortunate.

Ability to need, huh?

[JellyDonut]

Urine tests, which I'm assuming would be the test given for cost reasons, are easily circumvented anyway. It only tests drugs ingested recently and short-term abstention would give most people a negative. Also a lot of guides, information and advice on the internet on 'cheating' the test

[FlorianK]

Yes! Because the money they spend on the drugs does not go to the people living in Australia it's going somewhere else, the state is as well not getting the tax that it should get from the trade.
The consequence should be as abes proposed that they'd get a job allotted that most other citizens would not do, from that earned money they could get their drugs if they want to, because at least the earned money is getting taxed.

[Professor Polonsky]

Right. What about all the (virtually) tax-free transactions corporations make? Fuck, if a company is registered outside of Australia it basically is not paying any tax at all.