What we need is a trial scheme for the basis of the concept...

Let's start with a group of people whose job and responsibilities affect us all - politicians.

They can demonstrate the efficacy of the idea if they think it is so valuable.

There would be no shortage of out-of-work constituents willing to administer the tests. The results, of course, being published.

What about a two year trial? And alcohol should be included, along with prescription medications?

Forget the drug tests for pollies, wack them on a polygraph and no pay for any who don't pass some basic checks of suitability for the job.

On the broader topic I do agree tht just stopping payments increases the risk in other areas but it's worth remembering that a lot of workers are now subject to regular drug and alcohol testing in the workplace even in jobs which don't have any safety component.

It often seems that welfar recipients and the welfare lobby expect a higher degree of autonomy and privacy for welfare reciepients than those who are being taxed to provide the majority of that welfare have.

Likewise the suggestion I saw in the media coverage that its 'their' money, they should be able to do as they wish with it does not seem to apply for many on the paying side. Try being a CSA payer on a reasonable income and see how much financial autonomy you retain.

We struggle to find a good balance between compassion for the genuinely needy and flogging those who work and dont have access to tax breaks. A tax system that takes no account of the impact on the payer or how hard they have had to work to make that income.

R0bert

I have one thing to say regarding social benefits of any nature. It is an injection of funds into our domestic economy. Take away social benefits and we further shrink the economy. We give BILLIONS to aliens in other countries but do not require them to take drug tests. We give BILLIONS of dollars to strangers and that money never sees Australia again.

Sure beat up on some poor sod that is out of work with little chance of finding gainful employment because we have nothing left except service industries. Bleed your hearts for strangers in foreign lands and have no compassion for the poor sod next door.

Rehctub, what’s it like to be a perfect human being, let me know so I can be as bright and as good as you my fellow battler.

Every measure that is taken to punish or deny benefits to 'freeloaders' (or 'druggies' or whatever), becomes a permanent burden to EVERYONE within the system, whether they are honestly looking for work or not.

Everyone will have to comply with the tests, honest or not, and people will have to be employed to administer the tests. How many people do you reckon you will 'catch' with your little proposal rechtub? How much money will it save compared to how much it will cost? If benefits were removed, how long for?

What's your cost-benefit analysis for little piece of morality?

Phillip,
Perhaps my last line was not clear enough. I meant that druggies are safe from having their benefits withdrawn, It will never happen.

I don't have much time for druggies but they are portrayed as victims and victims don't lose benefits in our society.

Why not test politicians for drugs? After all there are needles disposal bins in the toilets of Parliament House, or so I am told. Any drug taking politician should be exposed and sacked forthwith. Its bad enough we have to put up with stupid.

It may help to split the issue into three questions.

1/ Does society have the right to impose conditions on those receiving welfare payments and check that those conditions are complied with?
2/ If so what's the most useful way of dealing with those instances where the conditions are not complied with?
3/ - may be part of 2 but is the issue worth the consequences of following up on?

For myself
1/ I think yes however I have serious concerns about the increased intrusion of government into peoples lives and think that drug testing should only ever be undertaken where there is credible suspicion of non-compliance and there is a case to suggest that there is a risk of harm to third parties. That should apply to all people, I'm tested occasionally as part of my desk job and resent the invasion of privacy.

2/ As others have pointed out stopping all welfare payments increases the risks to the rest of us. I agree that welfare payments are unlikely to maintain a drug addiction but stopping all payments to an individual escalates that problem. If that's not a constructive option then what is?

3/ Assuming that we have an answer to 2 then testing where an individuals actions give rise to credible suspicion that they have a substance abuse habit which is impacting on their ability to seek work then it's probably valid.

R0bert