Are you implying there aren't any, or asking for specific examples for a reason?
Philip Hammond says there are 'no unemployed people'
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Are you implying there aren't any, or asking for specific examples for a reason?
Exploring what people think of as immoral laws is kind relevant here.
Cannabis being illegal is the sort of thing that often gets brought up in such discussions and while I'm not exactly a puritan on such things, that would be one example relevant to this thread.
Cannabis's depression of drive and motivation are well documented along with it's relationship to psychotic symptoms and that may have something to do with the feckless one discussed earlier persisting in his current state sponsored lassitude.
WAY OFF TOPIC
Agreed .... but! (There is always a "but". :lol:)
It is illegal even for a person with terminal cancer who is racked with pain and can think of nothing nicer than a period of oblivion where pain is a distant memory and their "drive and motivation" has been depressed to a level where they can think of other things...
... like strangling the twats that won't legalise a substance for medical use because, nearly a hundred years ago, an American Distilling Company insisted that the substance was classed as a prohibited drug in order to protect its sales?
The fact that the substance can (and is) abused is mainly due to the fact that it is not "controlled" and the fact that it is "prohibited" makes it a major source of revenue for criminals.
BACK ON TOPIC
Its use includes those who are unemployed for reasons beyond their abilities to control.
I thank The Lord that I was not committed to a life of poverty and idleness because I deeply suspect that I would have turned to "substance abuse" to dull the stark realities of my life.
"There but for the grace of God go I." is a phrase I mutter to myself every time I see someone much less fortunate than myself.
I commend the phrase to others. :thumb:
Well said Dutto :clap:
.
.
There we go, I kinda thought that I might be able to guess what sort of immoral laws we might be talking about.
Interesting isn't it that the legal marijuana prescribed as "medicine" in the US s always the strong stuff with the high levels of THC and never the stuff with low levels of THC but high levels of psycho-protective cannabinoids that may genuinely help those with psychosis?
Weird isn't it that pain relief is so often cited when cannabis isn't a very good painkiller and we have very effective opiates that are safe in controlled doses.
Strange that cannabis advocates are so rarely willing to discuss the huge cost of treating users for psychosis, COPD, lung cancer or picking up the benefits bill that users generate.
We could have a whole thread on this.
How much do you suppose it costs to provide lifelong psychiatric care and benefits?
And what about the cost to families and the lives ruined by drug driving?
Interesting isn't it that the legal marijuana prescribed as "medicine" in the US s always the strong stuff with the high levels of THC and never the stuff with low levels of THC but high levels of psycho-protective cannabinoids that may genuinely help those with psychosis?
Weird isn't it that pain relief is so often cited when cannabis isn't a very good painkiller and we have very effective opiates that are safe in controlled doses.
Strange that cannabis advocates are so rarely willing to discuss the huge cost of treating users for psychosis, COPD, lung cancer or picking up the benefits bill that users generate.
We could have a whole thread on this.
How much do you suppose it costs to provide lifelong psychiatric care and benefits?
And what about the cost to families and the lives ruined by drug driving?
True. And yes, our drug laws in their current state are an example of what I would consider to be an immoral law. I'd argue the state has no right to tell you what you can or cannot ingest into your own body, and that laws which do dictate such things are a direct violation of your right to bodily autonomy.
In fact I'd go further, and say that providing their actions do not cause harm to or violate the rights of another, or place them in serious danger, then individuals have the moral right to do what they like. And I don't think that it can sensibly be argued that ingesting a drug of any sort harms another, places anyone in danger, or violates their rights.
But actually I think specific examples will just distract us from the wider point, which is this: if the law were a reflection of a society's collective morality, then those things which are universally agreed within that society to be immoral would be illegal, and those things universally agreed to be moral would be legal. And I don't think I'm being particularly controversial when I say that this is quite patently not the case. Therefore, the law can not be a reflection of society's collective morality.
I would call UK drugs law ill informed and inconsistent more than immoral. UK law was initially based on Christian moral values but has been moving away from it for over 100 years and at times the Christian ideas did not represent true Christian values.
Immoral does seem strong on the face of it, but they do violate the right to bodily autonomy, and I think most people would agree that violating others' rights is immoral.
If certainly agree that they are at least illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical.
Immoral does seem strong on the face of it, but they do violate the right to bodily autonomy, and I think most people would agree that violating others' rights is immoral.
I'd certainly agree that they are at least illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical.
aneray
Landlord.
Lots of Tory voters commenting I see.
Do you really, really think that everybody on benefits or unemployed want to be there. What about the families where both parents loose their jobs through no fault of their own.
Until 5 years ago I worked every single hour I could. Split shifts, every weekend, even every Christmas Day and Boxing Day working as a chef. Two operations later with the possibility of more to come for back problems put an end to me working. Do you really think I enjoy the pain of back problems, screaming in agony, watching the kids cry seeing me in pain, my kids having to dress me when the wife isn't there, doing virtually nothing for five years while my wife works full time, leaving work after 8/10 hours and travelling to her other part time jobs.
It amazes me how so many people out there believe the tripe that is fed to them through the media day after day, year after year. With these views I can guarantee that some would cross the road to avoid somebody begging but couldn't get their money out quick enough if somebody was collecting for a dogs charity.
It must be wonderful to know that this sort of situation isn't happening to you, but I reiterate what Frogbrew has said, 'Any of you could be unemployed one day'.
Its not the people on benefits that you have to worry about, just look at the wider picture. Didn't our lovely Chancellor buy a piece of land that couldn't be built on. Last time I read he was selling it for six million for housing. Now who's the money grabber.
Do you really, really think that everybody on benefits or unemployed want to be there. What about the families where both parents loose their jobs through no fault of their own.
Until 5 years ago I worked every single hour I could. Split shifts, every weekend, even every Christmas Day and Boxing Day working as a chef. Two operations later with the possibility of more to come for back problems put an end to me working. Do you really think I enjoy the pain of back problems, screaming in agony, watching the kids cry seeing me in pain, my kids having to dress me when the wife isn't there, doing virtually nothing for five years while my wife works full time, leaving work after 8/10 hours and travelling to her other part time jobs.
It amazes me how so many people out there believe the tripe that is fed to them through the media day after day, year after year. With these views I can guarantee that some would cross the road to avoid somebody begging but couldn't get their money out quick enough if somebody was collecting for a dogs charity.
It must be wonderful to know that this sort of situation isn't happening to you, but I reiterate what Frogbrew has said, 'Any of you could be unemployed one day'.
Its not the people on benefits that you have to worry about, just look at the wider picture. Didn't our lovely Chancellor buy a piece of land that couldn't be built on. Last time I read he was selling it for six million for housing. Now who's the money grabber.
Yes,more than a few Tory voters here,which is fair enough,I personally could never, ever vote for them but each to their own.
Money talks
Money talks
aneray
Landlord.
Absolute rubbish Ken.
The real reason why Eastern Europeans work the fields is down to cheap labour, nothing more.
I first came to Cornwall in 1990 to pick Daffodills in the fields. There were no Europeans back then, not in the flower fields, not in the veg fields, they were nowhere.
We came in our hundreds to do the works because there wasn't enough local labour to keep up with demand. Go forward a few years and the odd few Europeans started to join us. By then the Supermarkets became the sole buyers of the flowers and veg, prices were at rock bottom, all the supermarkets were competing against each other.
Not long after these lovely employers only started to employ foreign labour, English not welcome, been there seen it with my own eyes. Even now in 2017 you will rarely see an Englishman on a field. Why ?, because they are flown over from Eastern Europe, settled in static caravans, eight to a van and pay ���ã100 each for the rent a week. They earn minimum wage, are paid two weeks in arrears. If they don't pick a certain amount, they are shipped back. Not a bad business is it when they charge ���ã800 a week per caravan and there are 80 of them on a site two miles from where I live. To keep them in work they have a on site doctor, on site nurse to sort out any problems with health. Much easier than them taking time off from there jobs/living quarters and spending hours in town looking for a doctors surgery.
Whereas when we worked the land, we were paid piece work rate. We could earn just over a hundred pound a day each without any deductions. Its a bit different to sixty quid they are earning each day, isn't it.
That's why there is no local labour in the fields, nothing to do with not wanting to do it.
But I'm sure no-one is talking about people 'like you'. I'm certainly not; I mean those fit and healthy ones who have chosen not to work and have figured out how to get away with it. I personally know of two such people on our street alone. I have no problem with folk who don't want to work - that's understandable - only a problem with those who think it's alright that I should work to contribute to their upkeep when they are perfectly capable of it themselves.
aneray
Landlord.
Nowadays these people on benefits who don't want to work might as well quit the benefit system and get a job instead of going through the hassle of claiming. As soon as they start a claim the wheels are in motion to get them off it as soon as possible. Modern day versions of 'Jobclub' start straight away and claimants have to prove they are actively seeking work. If they don't prove that they are searching, sanctions are imposed. These sanctions are usually a cut in benefit from the seventy odd quid a week they receive.
I understand the anger and frustration of people who work but its only a very small minority of claimants that refuse to work, even though the media tar every claimant with the same brush.
You know what mate, I would love to work. I get pig sick every day doing the same thing, I've put on nearly five stone in five years through inactivity. I've cut down what I eat, use an exercise bike when I can, but my main problem is boredom. I search the job ads daily to see if there is anything I can do but the wife says that there isn't any point. Its the system as a whole that is wrong, its complicated and long winded. If I for example took a job sat on my backside working in Tesco on the tills for Christmas, Tax Credits and other benefits would virtually stop while a new claim is made. By the time it is sorted out, we would be in debt, the mortgage wouldn't be paid and I might even come back out of work due to my back, meaning another claim has to be made and the cycle starts again.
These that don't want to work don't get an easy ride nowadays, and so they shouldn't.
I understand the anger and frustration of people who work but its only a very small minority of claimants that refuse to work, even though the media tar every claimant with the same brush.
You know what mate, I would love to work. I get pig sick every day doing the same thing, I've put on nearly five stone in five years through inactivity. I've cut down what I eat, use an exercise bike when I can, but my main problem is boredom. I search the job ads daily to see if there is anything I can do but the wife says that there isn't any point. Its the system as a whole that is wrong, its complicated and long winded. If I for example took a job sat on my backside working in Tesco on the tills for Christmas, Tax Credits and other benefits would virtually stop while a new claim is made. By the time it is sorted out, we would be in debt, the mortgage wouldn't be paid and I might even come back out of work due to my back, meaning another claim has to be made and the cycle starts again.
These that don't want to work don't get an easy ride nowadays, and so they shouldn't.
Just an observation, my local weatherspoon 15 years ago was full of all the same faces of the long term unemployed alcoholics since then many have died off, 1 or 2 got barred, a few have got jobs and nearly all the regulars now work. Has anyone else noticed this change?
Never been in ours... wouldn't like to pass the ungodly-looking throng outside. The faces may have changed over the years but there's still the same numbers even at 10am or whenever it is they open - and the benefits office is about 20 yards away....
Ours is not even 5 yards from the job centre, but numbers though its increased in the last few years its still never even half as busy as before the smoking ban.
I said something similar earlier in the thread, i think most of us know some work shy sods are on disability benefit (or whatever its now called) as its impossible for a doctor to prove you don't have a bad back but i think this assumption that everyone who is not working is a work shy waste of space is a little unfair.
.
I sincerely hope I never came across as giving that impression. But I do know that it is easy to dupe some doctors, if one has the will to do so. My last one ( who actually fled his surgery never to return, in the midst of an investigation), handed out sicknotes like sweets. I'd go see him for whatever and the first thing he'd ask was "do you need a sicknote"? Once had a bit of sciatica and was amazed at his insistence that I should not be working! So yes it can't be hard for someone who actually wants that sort of thing... depending on the doc, of course.
Saisonator
Landlord.
I couldn't vote for Labour as I know from history socialism only ever makes the poor poorer.
Latest example the country Corbyn was singing the praises for Venezuela, even with it's massive oil reserves, socialism has ruined the economy and left the majority of the people in poverty.
