Try the political quiz

10 Replies

 @9HJY34Ranswered…3mos3MO

Yes, if they have a history and are exhibiting the signs of drug abuse after an interview with a professional

 @8KRDKB5answered…3yrs3Y

if testing is deemed necessary then politicians and government workers receiving gov money should also be tested and those that are testing positive should be provided with help rather than punished

 @8NY8LJYanswered…3yrs3Y

Maybe, but only if they provide support as drug addiction is an illness just as any other.

 @8GZ8L9Canswered…3yrs3Y

No, but decrease money given and give food stamp equivalents instead. Also, if found to be addicted to drugs regularly check in on dependents (eg. kids).

 @9KVL7Q6answered…5 days5D

If they are homeless yes if they are just old and don't work anymore they can consent to test if they wish.

 @9KL8KF9Laboranswered…2wks2W

I don’t have a strong stance on this, but I think there should be standards in place to ensure the welfare money isn’t used inappropriately

 @9K2XFKFLaboranswered…4wks4W

Test and if positive provide the right things they would need to keep them stable money wise and provide treatment.

 @9JXWD39Greenanswered…1mo1MO

Yes, provide treatment for those who test positive, and test everyone earning money from the government, including employees and politicians.

 @9JJBTWFanswered…2mos2MO

if they have a history of drugs, there should be a way to track spendings from the goverment point, so they can see if they are evn buying drugs

 @9HKY377Liberalanswered…3mos3MO

Yes, but only if a trained employee sees the typical signs of addiction/substance abuse, and after they refer this recipient to an onsite specialist who comes to the same conclusion should they be tested (or voluntary)

 @9HGSBTFGreenanswered…3mos3MO

YES BUT PROVIDE TREATMENT FOR those testing positive. And we should also test anyone receiving money from the government.

 @9GGL9B6answered…5mos5MO

Yes, everyone should be tested and helped if they have a problem. Including: employees and politicians.

 @9G9NGX6answered…5mos5MO

Only if they have been reported with drugs or suspicious activity. If not I don't see why they should be tested.

 @97Z39VHOne Nationanswered…1yr1Y

Only if they are repeat offenders making no attempt to to get off welfare

 @97YSHRYanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, if it is proven they are not actively looking for work or further skills

 @97XQ2L3answered…1yr1Y

No because what is it going to achieve? Cut their funding and they seek income from other sources such as crime?

 @97SFKYWLaboranswered…1yr1Y

Yes, and recipients should be given the option of either undertaking rehabilitation or not recieving welfare payments

Yes, and give recipients the choice of either not receiving benefits or undergoing rehabilitation.

 @97Q7265Laboranswered…1yr1Y

Yes, and give recipients who test positive the option to either not receive welfare or undergo rehabilitation

 @934K5NSanswered…2yrs2Y

No it's a waste of time and money but social welfare programs should be temporary if someone is able to work.

 @9347FQSanswered…2yrs2Y

 @9346PS9answered…2yrs2Y

For the time being, they should be tested and if testing positive should be helped with rehabilitation, and this test should be extended to politicians.

 @9345NX2Greenanswered…2yrs2Y

if they have children they should get help and still receive payment

 @933ZZKSanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, provide trestment but also stop there Government welfare checks

 @933XZ94answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, and test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians, but also provide treatment for those testing positive rather than criminalising them (unless rightfully so).

 @933L7D3answered…2yrs2Y

No, this is a waste of time and money we should work on generational recipients of welfare though but not take money from people if they have a drug addiction, they should be sent to a rehabilitation clinic.

 @933KVRSanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes but if they have been on it for over a certain amount of time and only for certian drugs

 @9336MMRanswered…2yrs2Y

No, only if they are both receiving money from the government (including employees and politicians) and have a criminal history related to drug abuse, and provide treatment for those testing positive

 @93325CSGreenanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but provide treatment, a financial counsellor and case worker. Spending should be monitored and penalties for using/buying/selling drugs

 @932D2ZRGreenanswered…2yrs2Y

Only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse, and provide treatment for those testing positive. Also decriminalise drugs.

 @92YLVXPanswered…2yrs2Y

What will if they get tested? Targets random individuals that may not be on drugs.

 @92YJFZ4answered…2yrs2Y

No, people turn to illicit substances when they feel defeated. Don’t waste money testing people for drugs when you could be spending it treating the mental health issues that lead them down that road in the first place.

 @92YDKP8answered…2yrs2Y

All government Employees, politicians and Welfare recipients should be tested. And provided treatment if positive.

 @92Y4G2Manswered…2yrs2Y

 @92XT34Qanswered…2yrs2Y

I think we should legalise all drugs. It works fairly well in Portugal. This way we can monitor the sales of it and Di stigmatise drugs.

 @92XQ8SManswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but offer treatment for those that test positive if they refuse or Fail reduce their benefit and restrict where they can spend it

 @92X2MYYanswered…2yrs2Y

yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians, provide treatment for those positive, and terminate some of their benefits if it directly opposes their drug use. (eg. if getting money aid and use that on drugs)

 @92WGJMVanswered…2yrs2Y

If they have been charged with prior use of A class drugs in the presence of adolescent then yes

 @92VHTF6Greenanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but testing should only be imposed on individuals who meet certain criteria to be drug tested. Positive users should be referred to treatment and they should still be eligible for welfare benefits.

 @92VDT8Canswered…2yrs2Y

No young person benefits, reduce retirement to 55 and only pay short tum or medically supported benefits, create low skill, labour, training jobs support by government policy to change unemployment culture

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...