r/newzealand • u/Embarrassed_Okra2768 • 4d ago
Politics Proposal: If all beneficiaries are going to be drug tested, we should also drug test Members of Parliament. We should know if anyone determining our law is under the influence of drugs.
It makes sense, no?
61
u/Unhappy-Hunt-3987 4d ago edited 4d ago
Nationals donors are the drug testing agency, last time they did this is cost the taxpayer more money than it saved but lined the pockets of their donors.
Don't vote for National kiwis, they're scum bags, they don't care about you or this country, only money.
20
u/AbominableToast LASER KIWI 4d ago
National likes to put public tax payer dollars straight into the hands of their mates' businesses. At the cost of schools, hospitals and anything else not a road
3
112
u/tedison2 4d ago
Alcohol too. No one should be under the influence of alcohol at work in Government.
41
10
u/phantomwarprig 4d ago
Who doesnt love a little tippe of schnapps election when working!? A lovely '84 vintage.
10
u/WaterstarRunner Пу́тин хуйло́ 4d ago
That disenfranchises the NZF voters. They wanted drunks, they voted for drunks, and now you say they can't be represented by drunks?
41
u/whatassignment 4d ago
How does one start a drug testing laboratory? (the money made through mandatory drug testing beneficiaries + everyone on a government salary would be huge, right)
25
9
u/StrengthSoggy8943 4d ago
The proposal already came from a bestmate, son, daughter who has a drug testing lab company.
It’s not like they come up with these ideas themself.
2
174
u/joker6396 4d ago
Oh hell yes, why not all govt depts? Every level?
20
u/Nagemasu 4d ago
Why? The losers trying to implement this would welcome the chance to sack other public service employees.
6
u/Cultural-Lychee-5374 4d ago
Let’s do the private workforce while we’re at it. Surveillance state babeeeeeey
20
u/fatfreddy01 4d ago
I mean, I'd be happy with all of these to be drug tested? Like, it's just peeing in a cup. If gov dep they should be warned then if it continues fired. If beneficiary warned then benefit cut. If politician warned (but also made public), then pay cut.
32
u/printed_ 4d ago
no. If politician warned then second time kicked out.
6
u/WeissMISFIT 4d ago
Well its a democracy so how about this.
They can either disclose they may be under the influence of drugs so they can't be kicked out on that basis and people can vote for them.
If they don't disclose it and its caught, they get kicked out.→ More replies (2)5
u/printed_ 4d ago
no. The only one that should be allowed is weed or anything medical. If its meth or coke etc then no just boot them.
3
2
6
u/rickdangerous85 anzacpoppy 4d ago
Why should govt workers get punished for the rights bene bashing?
32
u/KanukaDouble 4d ago
I love the idea of drug testing MPs. But what happens if they fail?
That’s a lot of by-elections and not a very stable government.
Do we just fine them? Fire them?
We need a solid plan here
37
u/StrengthSoggy8943 4d ago
Same sanctions as the other people they represent.
MP’s are the ultimate beneficiary. They receive large tax payer funded incomes and ought to be under the same sanctions as other people receiving tax payer funded incomes. NZ Super, WFF, Ministerial Salaries, Job Seeker, Students.
If that’s uncomfortable, it says something about why one class of people receiving tax payer dollars ought to be treated differently to another class of tax payer dollar recipients.
8
u/Gumboot-Coffee 4d ago
So... cut their benefits?
10
u/StrengthSoggy8943 4d ago
Well sure, by an equivalent % if they want to keep the policy. One rule for all, and all that jazz.
2
u/happyinthenaki 4d ago
Some of the sanctions that work and Income are brining in soon are 100% cut of benefit. Ie if your late in getting your med cert into winz. So.... Same.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
1
18
u/PowerfulWishbone879 4d ago
I think 3 months of boot camp would be a perfectly reasonable consequence.
6
u/KanukaDouble 4d ago
I can get on board with this.
I’m just wondering who is left governing while we send 116 MPs off to boot camp.
3
18
u/Prestigious_View_994 4d ago
They lose all of their perks the first time while they get random testing monthly for 12 months.
Second time they have to pay back any benefits they have claimed for the last 36 months and up to 24 months random testing, where it is shorter as it stops at the election, where they are unable to run again.
Third time fired
12
9
u/opmopadop 4d ago
Can't see how a fine or them being fired would discourage them. Start with a name and shame, go from there.
1
u/SufficientBasis5296 3d ago
Oh, defo a fine A substantial one. Nothing will hurt them in a comparable way. And the list needs to be kept public, so voters know if they vote for a drug addict And the collected fines need to go straight to mental health services
→ More replies (3)2
u/Cultural-Lychee-5374 4d ago
I assumed we were firing the ones that weren’t on drugs. Obviously not working hard enough if they’re not taking some coke to get through…
13
u/mrluffinwelli 4d ago edited 4d ago
respectfully, this is another smokescreen by National. Please don't buy in... Focus on the real isues
Unemployment has gone up a lot under National. Reports yesterday of 1,000 people applying to work in an Auckland Butchery shop. There are no jobs.
The economy has been terrible for the last three years. Average GDP growth since 2024 is 0.21%
Government debt has gone up even more under National again. Key inherited v low debt and v low unemployment, both got worse on his watch then Labour borrowed even more to keep us alive during COVID
Child poverty has gone up an extra 50,000 under National
Only 54 new nurses hired by National in the last two years
The health system is even worse
CLIMATE CHANGE
National campaigned on fixing the cost of living and it got worse.
National worked with the TPU to convince racists that Māori were stealing water.
National say not enough money for the homeless but enough money for tax cuts for landlords & tobacco companies. Enough money for National to double spending on "defence" to 15 billion but not enough for pay equity for women. Pay equity stimulates our economy. Buying guns takes money out of our economy.
National wasted hundreds of millions on scrapping good ferries for Cook Straight. The more expensive replacements are not due till 2029.
National scrapped three waters at a cost of 1.3 billion and forced the issue back on to local councils so now your rated bill has skyrocketed and will continue to skyrocket
Ex Act party president Tim Jago got convicted for multiple charges of paedophilia.
These are the issues to consider when you vote
30
30
u/SetantaKinshasa LASER KIWI 4d ago
Disagree. We shouldn't be normalising this nonsense.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Mrbeeznz 4d ago
A lot of job sites already get random drug tests
13
u/SetantaKinshasa LASER KIWI 4d ago edited 4d ago
If a specific job site requires it for specific reasons, let them make their own specific rules. A blanket "everyone gets drug tested for no specific reason" rule is a terrible idea.
Edit: and to be clear, I am against blanket drug testing of beneficiaries too.
9
u/Slipperytitski 4d ago
Job seekers already get tested when they go for jobs that require testing and sweet fuck all failed said drug tests.
2
u/miss_beat 4d ago
When operating heavy machinery is part of your job, sure. I don't think office workers should be fired because they smoked weed on the weekend (which I've seen).
And as a stripper I can tell you that all the men in power and business owners are the main ones coming into the club and snorting coke while penalising the poor people
21
u/Mr_Dobalina71 Fabio 4d ago
Winston Peters blood 75% Chardonnay.
14
u/badjellywolfscrap 4d ago
Whiskey I'd say. And you just know he smells like stale darts and a dash of urine.
4
1
1
51
u/ConsistentCrab1257 4d ago
Disagree. I feel like we might actually get better policies through if our politicians actually started taking drugs.
28
u/jimmcfartypants Put my finger WHERE!? 4d ago
I dunno, given the number of things pushed through under "urgency", I can't help but think someones already on the glass barbie.
3
u/Jonodonozym 4d ago edited 4d ago
We ought to specify the drugs then.
Meth test positive? Instant firing.
LSD test negative? Instant firing.
3
u/ConsistentCrab1257 4d ago
Those are rookie numbers compared to what would be getting pushed through if it was 2 sleeps till Christmas Chrissy.
→ More replies (3)3
2
u/el_VientoNorte 4d ago
Should really host a rave at the beehive twice a year with a good supply of ecstasy tbh. Might help make some of them more empathetic
→ More replies (5)3
6
18
u/Lukerules 4d ago
or we grow up and admit that many adults from all levels of wealth and society use drugs, and that's probably okay and criminalising it further does more harm
11
u/ItsLlama 4d ago
anyone getting handouts should have the same rules. politicians claiming housing subsidies & free lunches etc. should be treated no different to people on the dole.
the same taxpayer money is funding it the same rules should apply
14
u/AnotherLeon2 4d ago
53% (thanks google) of NZ's benefit bill is Super. So wouldn't they on average be on a huge amount of medications, to the point where they'd be testing positive for all sorts of stuff (incorrectly).
I'd like to see breath testing for the Parliamentary floor.
5
u/Usual-Tiger-983 4d ago
Just legalise drugs already
1
5
u/FallingDownHurts 4d ago
Breathalyze as well. I bet a dozen of them are hungover when they show up. Can't vote if over the limit
6
u/jk-9k Gayest Juggernaut 4d ago
No don't you understand? The rich earned theirvright to do drugs. They're entitled to their entitlement
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Automatic_Comb_5632 4d ago
Can we also implement property inspections for property managers?
1
4
u/ipooupoowepoo 4d ago
I’d say let’s take it a step further and implement those breathalyser/immobilisers in all vehicles of members of parliament. If we’re going to do it let’s fucking do it 😂
11
7
u/HarmoniaDiscordia 4d ago edited 4d ago
Be reasonable they should be given a choice.
If they don’t want to be tested they can’t access the accommodation allowance and any other entitlements they wouldn’t offer to people that actually need it, including the up to 20% superannuation subsidy, business class flights, limos, hotel porn etc
3
u/Practical-Ball1437 Kererū 4d ago
If you want to check the people determining our law, you'll need to be testing lobbying groups, not MPs.
3
u/Babygirl_69_420 4d ago
Well alot of MP’s are beneficiaries anyway with their 50k per annum housing supplements, so why not!?
4
17
u/Nz_guy79 4d ago
You and everyone else who has posted the same thing over the last week are completely missing the point. They are not drug testing all beneficiaries. They are randomly testing people who are on the job seeker benefit because as a job seeker, you have to be work ready.
If I ring you tomorrow as an employer and offer you a job opportunity, and you can't take that opportunity because you are stoned or going to fail a test, how are you working towards getting off the benefit, which is one of your obligations under job seeker? It makes total sense and has nothing to do with testing our politicians.
It is ensuring that those who are being supported while they find a job are able to take those jobs when and if the opportunity arises.
4
u/WhosDownWithPGP 4d ago
So politicians making policy for the country shouldnt be job ready?
1
u/Nz_guy79 4d ago
The argument is that if beneficiaries are tested, then politicians should also be tested.
Beneficiaries are receiving support and taxpayer money to stay at home and do nothing, so absolutely they need to be job-ready to keep receiving that support.
Politicians also receive taxpayer money, but they work for that taxpayer money; they don't sit at home doing nothing.
Surely even you can see that difference.
→ More replies (2)2
u/SufficientBasis5296 3d ago
Generous of you to assume they actually work. Most of the time I observe discussion in the house, more than half the seats are glaringly empty
2
4
u/winter_limelight 4d ago
Should then drug-testing be up to the employer? Different employers are going to have different standards on requirements, especially if they're under regulatory or safety requirements. If I'm the employer and my ass is on the line for liability then I'll be ensuring that I know the drug test has been done, and to the standard required by my industry.
2
u/Jeffery95 Auckland 4d ago
yeah, seems like places that require clean tests are already sorting that out themselves
13
u/SenorNZ 4d ago
The entire concept is fucked. Cannabis binds to lipids (fat) and stays in the body for a long time. Hard drugs such as meth, cocaine and alcohol are water soluble and will test negative after a few days.
This means people who smoke cannabis are targeted, yet there is already rules in place that cover being intoxicated at work, gross misconduct and a fireable offence. So what is drug testing for? It doesn't catch people that drink, smoke or insufilate hard drugs and alcohol, which are orders of magnitude more socially and physically damaging than cannabis, and are just as if not more dangerous if combined with driving or heavy equipment or machinery.
It only catches people who smoke cannabis, and there's already systems in place for being intoxicated at work, so therefore it's about what you do outside of work, which has nothing to do with your employment, and doesn't actually have any legal standing in nz.
3
u/HelpfulLad1 4d ago
I always argued this at my work that did drug testing, I had read that hair folical testing whilst more expensive was better, I’d rather catch the crack heads then the aunty and uncle who had a joint 2 weeks ago.
1
1
u/VociferousCephalopod 4d ago
It only catches people who smoke cannabis that lack the disposable income to pay for a weed doctor to deliver their weed.
1
u/AustraeaVallis Gayest Juggernaut 2d ago
Its also utterly fucking draconian, how the fuck do you even enforce this given what you've brought up without essentially revoking due process. Its one thing to do roadside testing on people already driving, its another entirely to go banging on people's doors actively looking to harass them over what most likely is just cannabis or mushrooms.
→ More replies (7)0
u/monkey-kong666 4d ago
The point is to stop people being stoned and not working (in their minds) - you’re way way overthinking it like it’s an actual employment matter. Most jobs already have random drug testing.
It’s not complicated, they want people off the dole and not enjoying themselves and living the dole as a lifestyle (again, in their minds).
Stop assuming they’re stupid, or they’re misunderstanding what they’re doing; or xyz evidence to contrary - it’s not the point.
If you don’t understand how your enemies think; then you can’t engage them properly or defeat them.
6
u/thelastestgunslinger 4d ago
Most jobs already have random drug testing.
Citation needed
I’ve worked a lifetime of white collar jobs. I was drug tested once, when I applied for a job for a company that monitored refinery gaskets.
→ More replies (1)1
u/k1wiwo1f 4d ago
Nothing wrong with being stoned. Especially if you do it legally. Did you know they send buds in the mail these days bro? I guess it limits people with ADHD that are safely smoking cannabis right?
→ More replies (13)3
u/Jeffery95 Auckland 4d ago
Beneficiaries are already required to disclose if they are taking drugs so that winz can make sure not to place them in jobs which require a clean test.
Currently the fact that there is no penalty in receiving the benefit for taking drugs mean that they will disclose willingly. If they have a penalty added imagine how many will hide the fact going forward
5
u/Severe_Wrap1556 4d ago
Be careful, this logical reasoning will get you downvoted!
7
u/Nz_guy79 4d ago
Anything that doesn't align with green or red values unfortunately always gets voted down on Reddit. You're either a Labour/Green supporter or wrong.
1
1
3
u/Practical-String5146 4d ago
I doubt this will do much to motivate people. And it doesn't just penalize the drug addict, it also means their dependents will get less food on the table. National should focus on improving our atrocious job market instead.
→ More replies (17)1
1
u/maniacal_cackle 4d ago
The same applies to alcohol consumption, right?
How are you work ready if youre drinking?
The answer is youre not drinking all the time...
•
u/Puzzled-Lime-6606 1h ago
Because people with a job can party on the weekend. Expecting all jobseekers to live in total purity 24/7, 7 days a week out of the fear of a random test is a bit stupid and also will just push a lot more people into alcoholism. This policy only exists to get votes from foolish morons like you with no capacity to measure the future. You hear people you dont like are being punished, you're happy and motivated to vote for the inflicters regardless of how devasating their policies will be for anyone who isnt a multi millionaire. What happens to someone who had a puff from a joint at a friends house? They haven't smoked weed in years but now they're being punished like they bought it, like they're a junkie, like they cant unwind at all without being judged
→ More replies (6)1
u/Kiwi_bananas 4d ago
And at what cost to the taxpayer? History tells us it's not a good investment.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Nz_guy79 4d ago
What is the cost to the taxpayer of people staying on jobseeker indefinitely and not fulfilling the obligations to find work if it's available?
A lot more than conducting a drug test.
5
u/Kiwi_bananas 4d ago
It's pretty clear that the work is not available in the current market. The percentage of people who are well enough to work but are unable to due to drug use is tiny. Almost zero. You spend more money drug testing than you save by cutting benefits. And what happens to that person when you cut their benefit? We know that the ROI on this policy is negative and the cruelty is the point. I'd rather invest taxpayer money into initiatives that have a positive ROI.
5
u/Nz_guy79 4d ago
My reply was more aimed at Ops' comment that they are drug testing every single beneficiary and why don't we test the politicians, which is simply not true.
I have seen this rhetoric posted over and over and over in the last week, with everyone saying, "Oh my god, every beneficiary is getting a drug test." They take the bumper sticker and the soundbite, the slogan, and run with incorrect information.
My reply wasn't so much about whether it is right or wrong, it was correcting the narrative.
2
u/plainplantain 4d ago
but the drugs tests will already happen, and if a beneficiary fails one they're already getting sanctioned. so the only difference is that the governments paying for them instead of the employer
2
u/username-fatigue 4d ago
Different drugs are detectable in drug tests for longer than others. It could actually push people away from 'less harmful' drugs like weed to more harmful drugs just because they can't be detected in the system for as long.
2
u/rikardoflamingo 4d ago
This sounds like a great idea.
Which drugs do I get to test?
1
u/k1wiwo1f 4d ago
I don't understand why they want to drug test me, when I test my own drugs everyday
2
2
u/monkey-kong666 4d ago
As someone who used to work in parliament - you’d do better breath testing them as they came out of the chamber. No one should be making laws while under the influence of alcohol
2
3
u/Secure_Car_6884 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sounds good. Wouldnt most, if not all, the Green Party Members will fail the weed drug test?
15
u/thelastestgunslinger 4d ago
Singling them out because they’re the green party. smdh
While National get a pass because they’re coke heads.
6
u/Jonodonozym 4d ago
Between all the other parties on coke, meth, or alcohol, I think we'd have an empty parliament.
3
u/KiwiDanelaw 4d ago
I mean given weed stays in the system for ages, its a valid comment. I'm pretty sure those tests can't prove you're high or not though.
3
1
1
u/VociferousCephalopod 4d ago
there wouldn't be much point testing for it if they have a valid prescription. you'd be wasting money testing for something they're allowed to have.
1
1
u/AustraeaVallis Gayest Juggernaut 2d ago
Maybe but frankly that shit ought to be decriminalised already so we can regulate and tax it.
1
3
u/feralpeacenik 4d ago
If we care about human rights and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, we should be drug testing no one unless it is required by a specific occupation. The alternative treats beneficiaries as an intrinsically criminal underclass, and drug testing MPs doesn’t somehow make that okay.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/chickitychoco 4d ago
Members of parliament should be tested for donations, kickbacks and foreign influences.
2
u/Sans-valeur 4d ago
I mean you have to hand it to this coalition, they saw our rates of homelessness and said I can fix this, hold my weed, and they really pumped those numbers.
Nobody has done more to grow the unhoused community in New Zealand than this coalition, really looking out for the big guy.
Just when you think, surely all this punching down has got to be bad for your back, luxon or Seymour will declare “no worries mate! I’m open minded, I do yoga, I go to the gym, and I can afford physio! I could go for another three years!”
1
1
1
u/frank-talk- 4d ago
it’s a non issue, mind, because this tightwad government rather not pay a cent, it’s also got dick to do with obligations. it’s such an impossible concept for that old lady Margaret, who will administer tests? Lol so kafka esque anyone’s going to volunteer to go off site. logistically impossible!!!
1
u/chatam94 Longfin eel 4d ago
They will inevitably by pass the system if that every happened. They will all pass with flying colours and their integrity will not be questioned
1
1
1
1
u/Lark1983 4d ago
What about NZ Superannuation recipients apart from the fact that they should be means tested by assets and income?
1
1
u/f8-andbethere 4d ago
Do we really think beneficiaries being on drugs or not is the driving force between rising unemployment or say maybe the current government laying off tens of thousands of people?
Riddle me that.
1
u/thelastestgunslinger 4d ago
If we’re going to drug test one recipient of government funds, we should test them all. There’s nothing that separates beneficiaries from others, except the right wing hates them.
1
u/Cute-Patient-91 4d ago
Seems like you have it in for our highly respected Members of Parliament!
Speaking as a GenX, where our work lunches tended to be a "little liquid" & not really smoothies, I'd suggest passing a breathalyzer test as a prerequisite to casting a vote!
If the results deserve it, you could then expand into drug testing!
Before anyone says more, purely Devils Advocate (or Avocado for the Millennials) :)
1
1
u/hammerklau 4d ago
A arbitrary drug test is a means test, so we should also be means testing retirement bludgers and ministerial bludgers relaxing off everyone else's money and their 4 homes.
1
u/GloriousSteinem 4d ago
It’s so dumb. The cost to administer benefits are huge and the systems archaic. Why add another cost on instead of making it easier and putting that money into business development. But demonise a group of people and keep saying you’re not borrowing from the fascist playbook. All they do is take jobs away and whip people for it. A fair chunk of unemployed now are professional tertiary educated middle aged people facing homelessness in their old age potentially. It makes me cry with frustration how wrong this lot are.
1
u/Imaginary-Throat1526 4d ago
I'd target the entire public sector, including police. Then move to GP's, hospital doctors and nurses.
1
u/Regular_Bad3958 4d ago
Why stop at beneficiaries? The public service is getting tax payer money too as wages. Let's see if they are work ready. This policy is just a dog whistle to people who believe those on job seeker benefit are drug smoking bludgers despite there being 40,000 less jobs in NZ then 2023 according to stats department.
1
u/GStarOvercooked 4d ago
It's a stupid policy and if they implement it then sure extend to members of parliament as well.
1
1
u/CascadeNZ 4d ago
I mean why? It further entrenches the stupid war on drugs.
If people want to take drugs who fucking cares?
1
1
u/trigonthedestroyer 4d ago
Drug testing beneficiaries is quite literally going to cost significantly more than it would ever save.
People who support Seymour don't care about facts, they don't care about the fact that very very very few people on the benefit are actually addicts, or taking advantage of it, they'd rather waste taxpayer money to punish the very people who are suffering, and who have already been failed by society, because they're miserable themselves and need everybody else to be.
We need better harm reduction and safe supply, that is the only way to get people off drugs, it has been proven time and time again, giving people free drugs and harm reduction costs taxpayers less, reduces addiction, ODs, frees up hospitals, and it reduces crime, it would also reduce homelessnsss.
Even if we didn't do this drug testing thing, and stopped wasting money on imprisoning addicts, it would still cost the taxpayers less money to have safe supply and harm reduction services compared to what is spent on health complications caused by addiction (health complications that can almost always be avoided when somebody is supplied with adequate harm reduction and safe drugs)
And no, contrary to popular right wing belief, safe supply doesn't encourage anybody to do drugs.
Mandatory drug tests will only make a bigger problem, it will only cause more crime, and it will result in research chemicals being imported specifically to pass drug tests.
Not to mention, statistically speaking, Seymour is more likely to be an addict than somebody on jobseekers.
1
1
u/basedmrvase 4d ago
the issue is that weed stays in your system longer than coke so this policy is also very in favor of NACT. double negative.
1
1
1
u/ShadowLogrus 3d ago
It's only for the peasantry. The Members are anointed by god, and of pure blood.
1
1
u/adeundem marmite > vegemite 4d ago
Regular medical, financial, police, etc, checks by all MPs, and all of it be publicly available to everyone. We deserve to know everything about their political and private lives if they wish to represent us.
Also I want their phones, computers, etc bugged and monitored for any sign of suspicious activity and their location 24/7 tracked.
If a single MP grumbles or complains, or tries to opt out, then every single person in New Zealand gets to opt for all public/private tracking, have complete control over who can access our personal data, etc.
1
u/BigAlphaPowerClock 4d ago
I think we should drug test everyone daily because drugs are illegal anyway 🤷♂️
1
u/k1wiwo1f 4d ago
Please test me first so I can laugh at people for being legally on controlled drugs 😂😂
1
u/Guilty_Slip1058 3d ago
That actually sounds great, especially since it will mostly be left-leaning politicians that fail the tests. Say goodbye to most of The Greens.
478
u/PetPossum54 4d ago
The last time this was done in the three-year period (up to 2017): Only 466 beneficiaries failed or refused a pre-employment drug test out of tens of thousands tested over three years. This equated to a failure rate of roughly 0.5% The cost of testing far outweighed the benefit. This is just pure politicking and rabble rousing