Police don't have the right to just test anyone at random with the exception of random testing of drivers- they have to have a reasonable suspicion.
The why nots have been well discussed- it's costly, it marginalises and discriminates and generalises (incorrectly), it's ineffective.
It is actually very common in a workplace environment where there is interface with the public or anything even remotely dangerous. I am involved in advising on workplace health and safety generally and a drug and alcohol policy is standard. From memory there needs to be reasonable cause. In any event it is usually found in the employers WHS policy (even if they never enforce it).
There would be a general statement that all employees must comply with those policies (even if they never saw them).
That's my guess anyway.
But I see that as quite a different issue to what was being proposed by the article. I'm going to bed now so don't have the energy to go into it - be back tomorrow.
Gotta weigh up the gain against the loss, I mean, what about the percentage of those on dole payments who are far from addicts, like the bracket of older people struggling to be employed due to age, but still too young to retire, kids out of school still between jobs and studying, people with families and young children just trying to get by and who may lack in skills, all these people have already taken a kick to their confidence due to their situation, and then forcing them to be treated as potential drug addicts would push people further under into a state of hopelessness. Subjecting all recipients to this is cruel, demeaning and damaging. Certainly there's a number of folk that are addicts and on the dole. But this is not the answer. Addiction runs deeper than finances. It's like saying just take beds off depressed people, that'll sort them out. Where the government may save a penny on some dole checks, they'll be spending it in response to an increase in mental health, longer term unemployment for some due to their self worth being squashed. Plus an increase in crime rates. Addicts are still going to be addicts, gotta get their cash from somewhere. Weigh up the odds, do some sums. This is a narrow, crowd pleasing solution due to a stereo type. Imo.
The government would only look into you if you got a opportunity to start a job & the job required a drug test before you commenced work then if you refused or failed the drug test the government would say well you just missed out on a job because you either failed the test or refused to take it so they would then give you 30 days with their help to get clean and redo a test then if you failed you would receive a cut to your payment until your next drug test .
They are not going to just drug test everyone !!! For example if your employment agency got you a job on the mines you would need a drug test . But if you got a job at Coles you wouldn't need one !!!
Last edited by Sonja; 02-06-2014 at 00:58.
is what it says.The Coalition says it is looking closely at New Zealand’s welfare system, which includes a tough approach to drug use.
It does not sayThat is an assumption that posters and "The Australian" seem to have made.and may implement something similar
The government has looked at heaps of models from many other countries.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!