5 ms·

Australia recently proposed (and later shelved) drug-testing welfare recipients in certain localities. These areas were to be chosen partially due to the level

Australia recently proposed (and later shelved) drug-testing welfare recipients in certain localities. These areas were to be chosen partially due to the level of illicit drugs and metabolites in their waste water. So, welfare recipients may find themselves drug tested not because they use drugs, but because the people around them do. It stinks of collective punishment.

rozenmd 8y ago
They didn't shelve it, they're just trialing it now: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/07/senate-inquiry-endorses-coalitions-plan-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/07/senat...
duxup 8y ago
To what end? So they can go from a desperate drug user to a very desperate drug user?
- stephen_g 8y ago
  Sadly, from the way they legislate it’s almost as if the conservative Government’s welfare policy is actually intended to dehumanise and punish the poor and unemployed instead of actually helping them... Luckily there will be an election in the next year and they are down in the polls.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Sadly it isn't just an Australian thing :( I just don't get it. I mean I do get it, in the US it's largely wealthy donors pushing policy that is really all about cutting anything to get them short term tax breaks or whatever..... but damn it if you're really fiscally conservative then finding programs that get these people off welfare and paying taxes is a GOOD THING, but no... just cut everything....
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Because the Liberal Party (which in Australia is actually the conservative party, confusingly) believes that being poor or addicted to drugs are moral failings, and not due to poor social support and the environment around them.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Dunno, as a taxpayer, I would prefer that the money the state is taking does no goes to drug addict (and from there to criminals)
- denverkarma 8y ago
  Kind of a circle jerk of poor summaries of the conservative positions on welfare. Generally the conservative argument is that welfare money should be earned in some way, essentially by doing socially constructive things (ie staying off drugs, applying for jobs, not committing crime). The goal is to direct resources to people who can be helped and are actually putting in effort to take care of themselves, on the assumption that those people can take some assistance and really benefit from it, whereas the addict who is sleeping on the street will just use tax money to buy more drugs. A common liberal argument (not the only one but a common one), is that it’s more important to help “those in need,” no strings attached, that you can’t expect them to get out of the gutter until their basic needs are met and even if giving them money just enables their habit you have to “do something” and giving them clean needles and cash is better than “doing nothing.” One of the problems that manifests all over the world in varying degrees is the tension between doing “something” which can easily harm more than it helps (the conservatives tend to point to this), and doing ENOUGH to actually help someone (or robust social services to rehabilitate people). In the US it used to be common for people to be institutionalized, they’d have all their needs met and in most cases get some semblance of help, albeit at a cost to their freedom. Well, nobody really liked that system since it was very expensive and was prone to human rights problems (if someone is too mentally ill to consent and you try and experimental treatment on them, are you helping or using them as a lab rat?). So now those people are on the street. At the end of the day it’s a very difficult set of economic and moral problems to solve, and demonizing the political party you dislike and labeling them as heartless villains accomplishes exactly nothing. What arguably would help is sane housing and public health policies so people could afford a roof over their heads and get medical treatment when needed without having to have an upper class job to pay for it.
  - jernfrost 8y ago
    I can respect that we have different views on how to reach the same goal, however I take issue with the conservative propensity to judge people. All too frequently conservatives rate people with some sort of failing as lesser people. There is a propensity to believe more in punishment and threats than positive re-enforcements. I believe in effective solutions. Often it seems conservatives will refuse to use an effective and proven solution if they deem it had somebody getting something for nothing. It seems as if conservatives will stay wide awake at night angry about somebody getting something they didn’t deserve. As a liberal I don’t care as much about what people deserve as I care about what works as well as human dignity.
WhiteSource1 8y ago
But if they don't do drugs, no punishment. (Of course, welfare recipients who use drugs should get treated, not thrown on the street).
golergka 8y ago
Why do you consider testing a punishment?
frockington 8y ago
Disregarding the morality of the law itself, how is it collective punishment if each person is then drug tested? If you do not consume drugs it shouldn't be an issue
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Any public employee is also a recipient of government funds. Can we make sure they get drug tested before any paycheck is delivered to any of those?
  - frockington 8y ago
    That would probably get expensive but I like the idea of it. Could maybe do a rolling 10-15% a year

rozenmd 8y ago

They didn't shelve it, they're just trialing it now: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/07/senate-inquiry-endorses-coalitions-plan-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/07/senat...

duxup 8y ago

To what end? So they can go from a desperate drug user to a very desperate drug user?

stephen_g 8y ago
Sadly, from the way they legislate it’s almost as if the conservative Government’s welfare policy is actually intended to dehumanise and punish the poor and unemployed instead of actually helping them... Luckily there will be an election in the next year and they are down in the polls.
- duxup 8y ago
  Sadly it isn't just an Australian thing :( I just don't get it. I mean I do get it, in the US it's largely wealthy donors pushing policy that is really all about cutting anything to get them short term tax breaks or whatever..... but damn it if you're really fiscally conservative then finding programs that get these people off welfare and paying taxes is a GOOD THING, but no... just cut everything....
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Because the Liberal Party (which in Australia is actually the conservative party, confusingly) believes that being poor or addicted to drugs are moral failings, and not due to poor social support and the environment around them.
baud147258 8y ago
Dunno, as a taxpayer, I would prefer that the money the state is taking does no goes to drug addict (and from there to criminals)
denverkarma 8y ago
Kind of a circle jerk of poor summaries of the conservative positions on welfare. Generally the conservative argument is that welfare money should be earned in some way, essentially by doing socially constructive things (ie staying off drugs, applying for jobs, not committing crime). The goal is to direct resources to people who can be helped and are actually putting in effort to take care of themselves, on the assumption that those people can take some assistance and really benefit from it, whereas the addict who is sleeping on the street will just use tax money to buy more drugs. A common liberal argument (not the only one but a common one), is that it’s more important to help “those in need,” no strings attached, that you can’t expect them to get out of the gutter until their basic needs are met and even if giving them money just enables their habit you have to “do something” and giving them clean needles and cash is better than “doing nothing.” One of the problems that manifests all over the world in varying degrees is the tension between doing “something” which can easily harm more than it helps (the conservatives tend to point to this), and doing ENOUGH to actually help someone (or robust social services to rehabilitate people). In the US it used to be common for people to be institutionalized, they’d have all their needs met and in most cases get some semblance of help, albeit at a cost to their freedom. Well, nobody really liked that system since it was very expensive and was prone to human rights problems (if someone is too mentally ill to consent and you try and experimental treatment on them, are you helping or using them as a lab rat?). So now those people are on the street. At the end of the day it’s a very difficult set of economic and moral problems to solve, and demonizing the political party you dislike and labeling them as heartless villains accomplishes exactly nothing. What arguably would help is sane housing and public health policies so people could afford a roof over their heads and get medical treatment when needed without having to have an upper class job to pay for it.
- jernfrost 8y ago
  I can respect that we have different views on how to reach the same goal, however I take issue with the conservative propensity to judge people. All too frequently conservatives rate people with some sort of failing as lesser people. There is a propensity to believe more in punishment and threats than positive re-enforcements. I believe in effective solutions. Often it seems conservatives will refuse to use an effective and proven solution if they deem it had somebody getting something for nothing. It seems as if conservatives will stay wide awake at night angry about somebody getting something they didn’t deserve. As a liberal I don’t care as much about what people deserve as I care about what works as well as human dignity.

WhiteSource1 8y ago

But if they don't do drugs, no punishment. (Of course, welfare recipients who use drugs should get treated, not thrown on the street).

golergka 8y ago

Why do you consider testing a punishment?

frockington 8y ago

Disregarding the morality of the law itself, how is it collective punishment if each person is then drug tested? If you do not consume drugs it shouldn't be an issue

conanbatt 8y ago
Any public employee is also a recipient of government funds. Can we make sure they get drug tested before any paycheck is delivered to any of those?
- frockington 8y ago
  That would probably get expensive but I like the idea of it. Could maybe do a rolling 10-15% a year