Urine test

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

megajester

Active Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
The Urine test

(This was written by a rig worker in the North Sea - What he says makes a lot of sense!)

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig for a drilling contractor. I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their **** drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?

Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete it if you don't.

Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in the UK , and soon.
 
Apparently european law forbids the **** being take out of them :)
 
I'm on disability benefit too,thanks for your kind thoughts and understanding. :hmm:
 
The post is not disrespectful to all on benefits as I am on benefits myself ( child and working family) and have a friend who broken his leg while holidaying and it got infected he was on benefits for over 4 years. If you re-read the post he says " Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their **** drinking beer and smoking dope".

If the post has offended you I appologised too you but I am not sorry for posting

When will this country stop being so sensitive
 
I don't want to get into a slagging match,but this is something I feel very strongly about.And this forum is not the place to debate this topic.

Since when did being sensitive become a crime in this country,by the way?

Lets stick to brewing and helping fellow brewers.After all I thought this was a homebrew forum. :thumb:
 
The Snug
This is the place for all non brewing chatter. Only members can post in this forum

:cheers:
 
Just my 2p..

Right, but if you take away basic cash for food and accomodation from addicts, (a) what happens to the local mugging and burglary rates, (b) what happens to the cost of drug addicts on the NHS (malnutrition, bacterial infection, hepatitis, hypothermia - all things at higher risk for the homeless), and (c) what happens to the already slim chances of getting those stuck on drugs to learn some kind of skill, or get a job, without a life-damaging habit (the end goal)? It doesn't really matter how they got into drugs or what's keeping them there, it's just a bad place to have a %age of your society.

I'd say even (b) alone makes the tiny cash handouts (regardless of testing for drugs) lower cost to the rest of us.

Not to mention how horrendously degrading it would be to **** in a jar for some stroppy woman every week before you quality to deserve a pittance of a giro - having health problems that stop you getting employment is definitely degrading enough, without being treated as a drug addict who's guilty until proven innocent by a compulsory test! Not even prisoners are treated like this.

Hmm, that seems a bit more like 3p worth to me :hmm: :D
 
megajester said:
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their **** drinking beer


If it's Carling then they're getting what they deserve :grin:
 
Yes your right lets give them more money, free housing, free food, free drugs , free beer then our crime rate will decline and we will all live happly ever after...genius
 
leondz said:
Just my 2p..

Right, but if you take away basic cash for food and accomodation from addicts, (a) what happens to the local mugging and burglary rates, (b) what happens to the cost of drug addicts on the NHS (malnutrition, bacterial infection, hepatitis, hypothermia - all things at higher risk for the homeless), and (c) what happens to the already slim chances of getting those stuck on drugs to learn some kind of skill, or get a job, without a life-damaging habit (the end goal)? It doesn't really matter how they got into drugs or what's keeping them there, it's just a bad place to have a %age of your society.

I'd say even (b) alone makes the tiny cash handouts (regardless of testing for drugs) lower cost to the rest of us.

Not to mention how horrendously degrading it would be to **** in a jar for some stroppy woman every week before you quality to deserve a pittance of a giro - having health problems that stop you getting employment is definitely degrading enough, without being treated as a drug addict who's guilty until proven innocent by a compulsory test! Not even prisoners are treated like this.

Hmm, that seems a bit more like 3p worth to me :hmm: :D

I certainly dont mind there being a safety net for those in genuine need (there but for the grace of god and all that) but we are now paying a third of all our taxes towards benefits. This is not right and it isnt sustainable. The argument that taking away handout from addicts will result in higher crime etc. is morally bankrupt. The equivalent of paying danegeld or protection money for people not to rob your house. There are ways of treating addiction and simply paying people to do nothing is not one of them (In my opinion, de-criminalising drugs would be one of them).

I'm not having a dig at anyone in particular who is on benefits as I dont know their specific circumstances but theres something seriously wrong in this country when there are 2.4 million households in which no-one has ever worked, yet others have to work very hard indeed to pay for them to do so.

It defies any sense of innate moral justice. This is not a right wing rant by the way. Bevan warned against this when he drew up the blue-prints for the welfare state after the war. (Old) Labour minister Frank Field warned that this was happening back in the late nineties.

Somethings got to give soon folks. We cant continue to enjoy this standard of living when we spend such a high proportion of our taxes on hand-outs rather than education and infrastructure.

And thats a self-evident truth.

23p.
 
jonewer said:
I certainly dont mind there being a safety net for those in genuine need (there but for the grace of god and all that) but we are now paying a third of all our taxes towards benefits. This is not right and it isnt sustainable. The argument that taking away handout from addicts will result in higher crime etc. is morally bankrupt. The equivalent of paying danegeld or protection money for people not to rob your house. There are ways of treating addiction and simply paying people to do nothing is not one of them (In my opinion, de-criminalising drugs would be one of them).

I'm not having a dig at anyone in particular who is on benefits as I dont know their specific circumstances but theres something seriously wrong in this country when there are 2.4 million households in which no-one has ever worked, yet others have to work very hard indeed to pay for them to do so.

It defies any sense of innate moral justice. This is not a right wing rant by the way. Ernest Bevin warned against this when he drew up the blue-prints for the welfare state after the war. (Old) Labour minister Frank Field warned that this was happening back in the late nineties.

Somethings got to give soon folks. We cant continue to enjoy this standard of living when we spend such a high proportion of our taxes on hand-outs rather than education and infrastructure.

And thats a self-evident truth.

23p.

Yep. In this case I'm only making a case against blanket urine tests, nothing else. Our infrastructure and education are shocking, you're bang on there, and there's plenty of evidence to back it up, too. As for standard of living - it's not that good here, but it is pricey!

My cynical friend suggests that the welfare state was only set up to make sure that the masses were healthy enough to rebuild! I'm not sure if I buy that entirely but it's an interesting opinion for sure.
 
Thought i'd give my input...not to stir things up....honest!!!

I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with people who genuinely have problems that mean they cant work.

I dont think booze and not working go hand in hand. If i wasnt working i wouldnt be able to afford to brew my own or even buy cheap sh@t from T@sco.

Three years ago i shopped a friend ( not very close) for working whilst claiming incapacity benefits, he was claiming to be in constant agony with a permanant back injury.

I tollerated it for a while, but at the time i was working my **** off for minimum wage whilst he would boast about not paying rent, having cash for whatever he wanted. It wasnt right.
I told him i did it, needless to say we dont talk anymore!! :rofl:

I dont think everyone should be tarred with the same brush just because a few @rseholes take the ****.

Since i left school in 2000 i have only been out of work for three weeks, i went to the job centre for help and to sign on and felt rock bottom, i can only imagine how people feel who genuinly have no choice.

god,i almost sound quite sensible and mature....time for a :drink: me thinks!!
 
At the end of the day this is my body, and during my own time I'll abuse it in whichever way I see fit.
But, I also have responsibilities......and I would never let anything spill over in to work or cause problems to my family.

Yes, there is a lot wrong with this country and a lot of people who are over relient on the state and not prepared to work....but I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree with drug and alcohol testing.

I'll leave it at that :lol:
 
markp said:
Yes, there is a lot wrong with this country and a lot of people who are over relient on the state and not prepared to work

Yeah, our duty/rights balance is way off - many people expect to have their rights held in the highest regard without a hint of a sense of duty. Not hot.
 
The problem with the OP's quote is that the rig worker isn't comparing like with like. Testing people for drugs without any better justification than they are unemployed flies in the face of the assumption that we are innocent until proven guilty. It is a pretty shoddy way to treat people many of whom are having a hard time as it is especially in the current economic climate. He is a special case, most workplaces do not require drug testing. While it is reasonable to require people to be tested in a hazardous isolated environment where it is safety-critical that the workforce are sober and reliable it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to ask everybody to be tested. I don't think that the general view in this country is that we should be under the gaze of Big Brother at all times, look at the fuss people make about speed cameras which are after all only a problem if you are breaking the law.
 
Back
Top