Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs?

Yes - test all receiving money from the government, including employees, beneficiaries and politicians and arrange treatment if required.

Yes, treatment should be provided and a warning given, repeated offence results in termination of benefits

A some people on benifits use drug to escape and have had hard, traumatic upbringings. There should be more support around the mental health side of things.

The benefits are their in times of need. Not to harass people.

Yes but only with sufficient proof they could be on drugs or there is a reason they NEED to be tested

Medical drugs and fruads with accountable of actions by legal privilege by legend former US president Donald Trump and former UK prime minister Boris Johnson hoping straight wings body's protection

Yes everyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians also random testing. If positive then be terminated after a month

Yes, but only for opioids and more problematic drugs. Cannabis and psychedelics are not so bad and shouldnt be illegal.

Yes, only if they have history or speculations by others or some source of evidence regarding drug usage. Provide treatment if tested positive. Otherwise no, it is a waste of time and money

Yes test. Also have a start date and an end date for their welfare period. Discourage this as a way of life!

Food, rent etc directly paid for so that their kids do not miss out, but so they can’t buy drugs etc

Use is ok if it's Dr validated reasons, reduce payment if addicts are not willing to receive help offered

Be more strict on the conditions of benefits, eg if they're using the money for drugs, reduce the amount they're paid and if they keep using then stop the payments.

Yes, positive results would trigger a process that covers addiction treatments, parenting assessments and education, employment opportunities and training, social support and comuselling and ends in receiving less or no welfare b depending on the results of this process. marijuana should not be considered necessary for this full process if there is an addiction noticed, high thc levels or high consumption that is impacting ability to contribute to the economy

Only those deemed both physically and mentally capable of working (but might be unemployed) and above the age of 16

Absolutely - I have to be drug tested in my place of employment. If you are on a benefit then don't sit around taking drugs on my money. However, it could be replaced with your rent and amenites are paid for, and food grants given to ensure children are not impacted. If you have no dependents, a positive test is end of entitlements to welfare support.

No, but screening/background family checks could help with finding people who are abusing the welfare system for drug money

Yes, they should be provided treatment and their benefit given primarily given in the form of food credits etc to ensure their children get fed.

only in cases where deemed appropriate (e.g history with drug use). Alcohol is included. provide treatment for those testing positive.

Yes, test everyone including politicians and provide treatment when comes up as positive

No, but test anyone employed by the govt including politicians

yes excusing Marijuana

Yes, but only for serious A list drugs

Yes, but help them if they do do drugs

Yes But only for non medicinal drugs

Only class A drugs.

Maybe if they have a history but provide help and solutions for them

Depends on which drug, some would need rehab vs like weed just making people lazy then yeah cut social welfare

No. Addiction is a health issue that effects working, infact, there is a benefit for those that suffer from it. Again, I couldn't imagine being punished for something I did as a child. Sure I am clean now, but I was an adult when I managed to do that.

If they can’t get employment because they can’t pass a drug test, they shouldn’t be eligible for a benefit

No, but Increase drug rehabilitation services

Yes, and immediately terminate benefits for a period of time till they become clean

yes if it is tword the public not for self issues

Absolutely never.

Yes, but provide support for those testing positive for the harder drugs like meth. For lighter drugs like weed their benefits should be terminated

Yes if they are receiving a benefit for raising children or responsible for children

Yes, if it’ll effect them gaining sustainable employment

If yes pay rents, food cards etc to try decrease money being used on drugs

No, but provide more treatment programs

Case by case basis. Testing should be done with the purpose of harm reduction and support not conviction or reduction of benefits

Yes, and provide them with treatment, give them food parcels, pay rent and power bills direct rather than continuing to fund the problem.

No, only if they have criminal history related to drug abuse and if so treatment needs to be provided

No, the access to medical services for drug abuse should be easier for all, and access to a minimum basic income should be universal

Yes but drug and alcohol rehabilitation should be an option and consultation with the family unit on how the financial benefits being spent is needed. Mental health also needs to be taken into consideration

Yes - only relating to the unemployment benefit. People on other benefits such as disability should not be disadvantaged by this. Also if the test is positive they should still be helped financially and receive help in recovery.

No, unless they are competing for a competition.

No, only if they have a history of drug abuse, and provide treatment for those testing positive

This is a tough one. If they have a criminal drug history and are receiving a DPB, this money is to support them and their dependant child/ren. It won't stretch to properly caring for children and a drug habit. If they test positive, that is food, clothing, doctor visits, school trips and bus passes being taken from their child. Probably dangerous randoms having access to their child's home. In such case the children should be removed to a safe environment (parent can still supervised visit) undergo free drug treatment, have the DPB stopped and put on the regular dole until they get…  Read more cleaned up and stay that way for a medically recommended length of time, before they get their kid and the DPB back, and continue to regularly pass drug tests.
A bit different for the dole, superannuation . The person is only harming themselves if they're in drugs, and it's a helluva intrusion to just do to everyone, willy nilly. A drug habit can't be supported by the dole anyway, so they're likely supplementing with dealing, under the table work or growing their own.

Only hard drugs like meth and p that ruin peoples life. Not marijuana.

Only test if there is history of the person using drugs or if they have been on welfare for longer than 6 months and are not attempting to find work.

Yes but only if there are kids involved. If testing positive, encourage rehabilitation, education and support for those involved rather than just decreasing or removing the benefit.

Yes but provide treatment if tested positive but if they fail to maintain it they lose their benefits

Yes, not terminate, but to pause benefits for those who are not willingly to attend to drug rehab programs where it should be monitored on a weekly basis.

Why would we punish the whanau that do drugs, when we should be helping them to control and end the use. More programs are needed to support the whole nation. VERY ANGRY AT THIS QUESTION!!!

Yes, provide treatment for those testing positive and if bad enough include charges and criminal consequences

Circumstantial ie. medical or potentially medical marijuana use should be allowed based on individual Class a excluding medicinal Marijuana oils from dispensary should be tested

How about putting more money into community services who can help and support families they suffer from addiction, drug and alcohol use. Majority of these people suffer from a number of complex issues, trauma from childhood or even adulthood, domestic violence, being disconnected from family and society. If someone uses drugs there is always a reason ! Find the reason and pump resources into places whi can provide supports and make it that if you receive a benefit and meet criteria to get further support on some areas then they have to engage in those supports !! The outcomes will be far better and will help future generations to come !!

No, only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse (especially class A drugs) (Should NOT include the use of cannabis)

Yes test everyone receiving money from government including employees and politicians. And if they test positive terminate any benifits for those testing positive.

No, but welfare for single parents should be reduced. Instead, childcare should be free or heavily subsidised, and the minimum wage increased.

No, just offer it as a service alongside free counseling and addiction services but don't force it on people as a requirement of having a benefit as that will negatively effect children of beneficiaries.

yes, provide treatment on those testing positive, and there benefit becomes a voucher system, food/rent/power,

Yes, and use testing as an incentive to reduce the use of recreational drugs.

Yes, and there should be a support system and help put in place to provide resources to help them with their situation

Depends on the drugs and what welfare they are on. Ie a sickness benefit, and smoking weed MAY be okay. Never having worked and smoking weed- absolutely no

No. Drug use, so says the science, is best treated as a health issue. Addiction needs to be treated yes, but making life harder for people will not remove their dependency or its effects on them and their families. If "drugs are a crutch", who are you to take a person's crutch? Such questions are too often left to public opinion - what does the general public know or care about such things?

Depends on why they’re on welfare. If they seem to only be on it to avoid work and do drugs instead then yes test them but if they genuinely can’t work for whatever reason then don’t test them. Because the only reason for testing would be to see if they’re exploiting welfare

Yes and manage their funding if positive

No, only if we are helping them quit.

yes, but provide treatment options and education to positive tests and require a certain time frame for them to test negative depending amount of drugs consumed, otherwise terminate their welfare.

Yes, all persons receiving taxpayer money should be tested and treatment compulsory for those testing positive.

Yes. Should be randomised testing

Yes to provide treatment

No, people should not be singled out.. but health and education should be offered.

This is a medical issue

Yes, but individuals should be tested at different rates based on a risk calculation.

No this is insulting

Yes but only harder drugs like meth and heroin for example, and they should be offered rehab help or addiction help or counseling the benefit should not be fully cut but it should be controlled by a card through work and income till a clear test comes back in about 3-4 months an if that test comes back positive then cut there benifits but still offer help. Every addict has had something happen in there life to keep on taking drugs as drugs can help block pain and memory and also block emotions.
I do not included marijuana as a harder drug. I have seen marijuana help hundreds of people as a pain relief so they can get up and do things every single day I do not believe that marijuana is a bad drug an I would like to see it in the medical world to help people with cancer or fibromyalgia or chronic pain problems.

If they are deemed an unmotivated unwilling to work citizen. If they pose a threat or have any form of criminal history. If they are on the benefit and are not using that funding to provide for their family/children.

Yes but leniency on specifics

Yes, there should at least be the possibility of being tested with some repercussions. I. E. Positive test result requires consecutive negative tests to maintain welfare payments. In any serious addiction cases, treatment program provided.

Yes - but only those of employable age and ability

Yes, aside from marijuana

Only for hard drugs like meth, heroin, etc

If they have a related criminal history, don't have a health condition preventing them from working and for class A and B.

If they have a criminal history related to drugs then yes, and they should be provided with help to stop using

Yes, but don't let it stop theor welfare. Support them

I feel yes we should because there are a lot of crackheads on the benny however. If they smoke weed not such a big deal u less they arent actovely looking for work

Only when applying for jobs

Random drug texting

For any drug that isn’t weed

Yes but only for class A drugs such as meth not for marijuana they are not the same also if testing positive help should be offered to support coming off drug addiction. Not simply cut them off.

Everyone should be tested for drugs in airports or hospitals (important public places)

No but treatment programs should be freely available.

Only if a history of drug abuse and if there will be a way to provide the suppirg for them to continue living.

No only if they have criminal history related to drugs however provide treatment for those testing positive and support them

If they are tested it shouldn't stop them from receiving help if anything it should mean they should get rehab help aswell

No. Alcohol, despite being legal, is a drug and many working class people use it as a coping mechanism on weekends. Terminating benefits for people testing positive for other drugs will only cause more issues.

Yes, and so should anyone receiving money from the government, including employees & Politian's, but also provide ongoing treatment and support to those testing positive