Drug Testing for people on benefits?

[lesleyann]

I think if a person has children and tests positive they should be placed in a mother/father and baby/child unit and helped to get clean whilst making sure the child is looked after, If they still refuse to help themselfs then the child/ren should be taken away..

If its someone without children then they should be sent to a rehab to be helped..

For the people who wont clean up well, how about shared housing and they get given food stamps rather than cash?

 

[DanielleM]

What kind of drugs are they testing for? Depends on what they test positive for, and also there are alot of black market prescription drugs out there.

I think it will cost too much to roll this out across the UK and then the aftercare for the addicts and the (possible) children, as all healthcare will be paid for by the NHS so the government. Also if the addicts get their benefits taken off them I would predict that crime would rocket. An addict is an addict and they will get their drugs one way or another.

No I don't think it would be a good idea.

 

[LeeBee]

^ you might be right about the increase in crime. It will be interesting to see how that's affected.

Here's an article I found on what they're doing in Florida.

https://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01...ug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

[LeeBee]

I think if a person has children and tests positive they should be placed in a mother/father and baby/child unit and helped to get clean whilst making sure the child is looked after, If they still refuse to help themselfs then the child/ren should be taken away..

If its someone without children then they should be sent to a rehab to be helped..

For the people who wont clean up well, how about shared housing and they get given food stamps rather than cash?

Can't remember where I heard this... but evidentally it's cheaper to put someone through rehab than it is to put them in jail.

I feel pretty strongly about children in homes with drug abusers (probably because I grew up in one myself) so I agree with your first paragraph.

 

[vaniilla]

I also 100% agree with it, I think the people that test positive should be offered support and help to quit in what would be a reasonable time limit based on their addiction, extent of addiction, for how long they've been a user etc before cutting them off

 

[v2007]

I agree with it, the money they give you is to pay for food and bills not for pot and drink!!!

Wish they would do it in the UK.

v XXX

 

[hb1]

I agree with what shanandboc is saying, I just can't see this one as black and white

And why pick on just drugs, there's plenty of other undesirable things people can do, why not come down on people who smoke or drink excessively?

My thoughts exactly. Benefits are for feeding, clothing, housing etc, not buying drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, huge flat screen televisions, iPhones etc etc, but I cant see where policing what it was spent on would end really?

alcaholics get an alcahol allowance to cover that expense!!

 

[Eternal]

People do need to learn to take responsibilty for themseleves, but i also dont agree with throwing them out on the street.

Perhaps if there was some sort of centre that people in that situation when to where they could get support, food etc and detox (or whatever it is you do from drugs lol). Children can be supported in this sense too and parents can be educated.

But I guess the gov talked of doing simular things here with people that refuised work, they said if you trun down so many jobs that benefits would be taken away, no idea how they cope without it though, dont think anything happened with it.

 

[KittyVentura]

I like the idea - not in a way that drug users should be ostracised... but to prevent benefit money being used for drugs. Perhaps in a way those found to be serious drug users could still recieve benefits but in the way of vouchers or tokens? Have housing paid, recieve a bus pass for travel and have vouchers for food and basics so long as they sign up for some kind of treatment/therapy to get clean?

I don't agree with them just being cast aside to recieve no benefits and spiral deeper into a damaging cycle that often comes when drug users are faced in a situation where they are addicted and have no means to fund their addiction thus turning to other methods to obtain funds etc.

I have friends that use drugs - from speed/tabs on nights out to regular cannabis users to occasional drug users... none with full on addiction though. Do any of those amazing people deserve to be cast aside because of their hobbies/choices? No... but they should they need to rely on benefits then I believe the benefits should not fund their drug use. After all, even the worst of criminals get a bed, shelter and food if they go to prison... There are other ways to give benefits however aside from on cash xx

 

[robinator]

I have friends that use drugs - from speed/tabs on nights out to regular cannabis users to occasional drug users... none with full on addiction though. Do any of those amazing people deserve to be cast aside because of their hobbies/choices? No... but they should they need to rely on benefits then I believe the benefits should not fund their drug use. After all, even the worst of criminals get a bed, shelter and food if they go to prison... There are other ways to give benefits however aside from on cash xx

You're right, people should not be denied based on what they do in their leisure time. But, if they are doing the drugs, then some portion of their income, no matter where that income comes from, is going to be used towards the purchase of the drugs/alcohol/what have you.

When people ask churches for rent money or money to pay the electric bill, that church will cut a check directly to the creditor, to ensure that the money they are giving is actually going towards whatever the person had said they needed it for. It would be nice if the government worked that way (I guess they do with food stamps), but unfortunately it would be too time consuming and probaby impossible to police.

 

[LeeBee]

It would be nice if they could take cash completely out of the picture, and just have it so utilities, rent, ect. would be paid directly. Then also money in some form of food stamps (which I believe they already do).