NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Spending tax payers funds on drugs could be stoped by testing, so get on with it! John

*Why should the backbone of the country, the workers, buy drugs for beneficiaries who may not have the will to work and consider themselves proud to support their country, NZers. George

*If WINZ says they are too busy to do the drug testing, then just employ a few people who are receiving benefits to provide the numbers for the job to be done properly. There is no reason why their wages have to be any more than what they are currently receiving on the benefit Delwyn

*They should stop smoking too! Mack

*THIS IS CARRIED OUT IN MANY WORK PLACES..IFTHEY WERE AT WORK, IT WOULD BE CARRIED OUT. JANE

*All of them should be taken off the payment & made to get a job & theres plenty out there, look in the paper each day. Geoff

*40000 dead in mexico would indicate that prohibition is a greater curse than the drug you seek to save us from. That you demand the state enforce your moral values on others shows you are what your claim to oppose. Should all people be drug tested? caffeine included. Drug use is more likely to start due to loss of hope or future. The state spends at least $600 million a year on the war on drugs that is $600 million that could be spent on early childhood education not using the state to impose your moral values on others. Ross

*But I qualify my "yes" with a question: Would this be in contravention of the Bill of Rights? Further, we would also need to offer treatment to help and support people getting off drugs. Laurence

*The first small step in reducing welfare dependency & the welfare budget. But which government would have the balls to do it? Dave

*I AM GOD, AM KING, AM LAW. Look it up the greatest criminal is government in what ever form it takes. If you don't understand what I am saying you never will. Ross

*Alcohol should be included in the 'drugs' tested. Jan

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Definitely, if they can afford (non prescription) drugs, they don't need a benefit. Wally

*Yes of course they should be drug tested. Michael Joseph Savage also had a condition attached to the benefit ... it was that people who received public assistance "must be of good character". For goodness sake bring that back. No body of sound mind would give public money to someone who was not of good character. It's no wonder our country's economy is such disarray. An lay off the pensioners too. They've earned their pension by way of taxation. Get these young louts and loutesses into work to do their share. Dianna

*Most definitely. We are subject to random drug and alcohol testing at our work place with severe penalties imposed if a test is failed. A 2nd failure means immediate loss of employment. Beneficiaries should not be treated any differently to anyone else. One failure of a test should result in a warning however a 2nd failure should mean instant cancellation of the benefit for a minimum of at least 5 years. Allan

*I have no problem with this. Ronmac

*If they are on drugs the taxpayer has been funding their habit... Chris

*Probably a good idea, but I know plenty of people who have fallen on hard times who do not use drugs. Perhaps drug testing is something that should be required only for those who show a history of drug use and/or a history of losing jobs shortly after starting. That is, make it mandatory only for the worst cases. Gary

*Except for those on Superannuation. George

*A powerful tool in reducing drug dependancy. Peter

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Like a blood donor, after the blood is collect it has to be tested to see if is fit for transfusion. Garbage in - Garbage out. Rex

*I know of a guy who has been on the methadone programme for 25 years. During that time he has never had paid employment, and has been involved in 2 drug related home invasions. Murray

*Testing should be ongoing. Not just a test when they signup but randomly and at a set interval. Those on unemployment should also have to prove they are seeking work. Michael

*At the risk of upsetting the majority - hopefully - of beneficiaries, I'm sure that there are 1000's who use it for the wrong/drug reasons. Fay

*Absolutely!!! Benefits for solo mums should not increase in relation to additional pregnancies unless the male involved is named and made responsible for payment thereof. Peter

*Definitely we have to many parasites on benefits in NZ. Ian

*Great idea! In effect, this means the taxpayer is currently paying for the drugs! Mike

*And no benefit if positive. James

*Yes of course drug test beneficiaries. Oh, but what about their "rights". Could be up against a tough one here. Also we would probably find that the maoris would negotiate special dispensation to avoid testing because they have had such a bad deal for so long and are just, just, just...well you know what I mean! Neil

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Most definitely - and regularly!! We should not be paying benefits to anyone who is dependent on drugs. This should not be an excuse for not working and being on a benefit. The whole system needs to be revamped so that unless someone is chronically ill, disabled, or has children under a certain age, the benefit should only be short term. It should also be quite clear that there would be no extra benefit for any children born to a person who is on a benefit. This would eliminate the bearing of more and more children so as to stay on a benefit. B+H

*Not sure on this one, does this include pensioners? Robert

*This is NOT Florida, and you guys have NO idea of the hell Schizophrenics OR their family caregivers go through AS IT IS. David

*I imagine there would be a 70 to 80% drop in benefit paymouts immediately. Ross

*Only if that test includes drugs which people are also dependant on such as alcohol and cigarettes.. which are money wasters for the taxpayer and the kids dont get fed for money being spent on habits.. I presume those are the reasons they want to drug test, so include them all. Amy

*Beneficiaries who test positive for drugs should not necessarily loose their benefits but should be paid in kind not in cash. K

*All beneficaries should at least be liable for compulsory testing at any time. Perhaps random testing could be an option? Frank

*Some good thinking. Monica

*Any fool knows this is so simple it beggars belief that it is not already done. Perhaps it infringes a persons right to privacy? Dominic

*Compulsory drug tests should be mandatory for all beneficiaries. Notification of the impending test should not be given so that the results are genuine. Failure to comply with an instant request for a drug test should mean a failed result and the benfit suspended immediately. Jean

*Absolutely yes, and made to phone in to show they have got out of bed, instead of noisily partying on a weeknight while workers are kept from getting to sleep! Jack

*What about alcohol? This would surely have to be incuded. Today we have benefits providing alcohol. So why not include alcohol dependency. Edward

*Very good idea. Trouble is when do you test them, or does it matter when as the worst offenders would be continually stoned. Chris

*What a good idea. MM

*Any recipent of Government funds - handouts must be subject to the same tests as would a private employee - test them all. Grant

*I'm on an invalids benefit and I'm all for that. Bryon

*Of course they should! I am indignant that my taxes should be misused to support drug addiction by these bludgers. Rob

*There could be some exceptions! David

*They also should have a three strikes and your out policy applied to their criminal activity. Dig up some stats and see just how much crime is committed by beneficiaries. The proceeds of this crime going to fuel their addictions. Maurice

*That's a maybe, opens up a whole can of worms. John

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Why should I work to pay tax to support some loser's drug habit? Once upon a time it was a prerequisite that beneficiaries must be honest citizens of sober habits. Why is this not still the case? Kerry

*I am concerned that this has not been made a requirement previously. Kenneth

*I say No, reservedly because of the horrific underclass this sort of testing would create. Here in NZ we already have a thriving "green economy" the drug problem is already high. While it might seem a simple solution, to test all beneficiaries for drug use, if the help isn't immediately available and implemented they economic and social consequences would just drive the crime and drug problem further. I also don't think it would stop at just illicit drugs, I think it would easily escalate to testing for nicotine and alcohol use.
Instead of hitting our down and out, how about the powers that be concentrate on getting jobs created, Jobs that actually pay a livable wage, jobs that were meaningful, jobs that were accessable.
Get people working and a huge number of problems will evaporate. But as we all know, the politicians are to busy feathering their own nests to help out the rest of the population. Wendy

*Great idea. Bob

*But what about their children if there becomes no benefit? Anne

*Absolutely. Let's get real. Graeme

*YES they are a waste to themselves and the country. AND THIS IS FOR ALL DRUGS and ALCOHOL. Why should the tax payers pay for self abusers. And if it is considered that sex is a drug, then all sex tools and lubs and contracceptives including the pill must all be paid for by the users. This would reduce our health vote by some 10% plus. Rawiri

*But is someone receiving NZ Super considered to be a beneficiary? Perhaps the whole population should be tested? Steve

*We have to draw a line at some stage, now is the time. Doug

*If my taxes are going to support beneficiaries, I want to know they're not going to be thrown on the garbage dump of drugs. Shirley

*Definitely also the DPB benefit should be very closely looked at and if a mother has more than one child out of wedlock or without a partner to support and claims the DPB the child should be adopted as there are many people who want children and adpotion is the only way they can get a child this would then reduce the benificiery's recieving my tax dollars and also make a lot of childless people happy. Six children by six different sperm individuals is wrong. David

*ONLY THOSE SUSPECTED OR THOSE WITH DRUG CONVICTIONS. Barry

*I find this idea abhorrent. Karl

This week's poll asks:

Should all beneficiaries be drug tested as a condition of benefit receipt?

*Oh yes, but what about their self esteem? want to know the definition of poverty in NZ? not being able to feed your kids due to the high cost of alcohol and cigarettes. John

*Labour will appose it. They will not wish to upset one of their large voting blocks. Alan

*I have always hated paying people state support so they can feed their drug addiction or alcoholism. It is excellent to see that in some countries they are doing something about it. I believe that drug testing people on benefits is fair enough. Andrew

*We need to be serious about drugs, full stop. Willy

*Yes I agree with drug testing beneficiaries - but good luck with the gang members! Kay

*People on the dole and the DPB should be the priorities for drug testing. They can tackle the sickness and invalid beneficiaries later. Michael

*People on benefits have obligations to use taxpayers money wisely. Smoking it ad drinking it away is not using it wisely. Peter

*If workers need drug tests, beneficiaries should have them too. Wendy