Discussion
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 arse 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!
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 arse 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!
Welcome to Nazi Germany.
Whilst I'm not defending wasting your life and leaching off society the fact is that, depending on who you believe, well over 60% of Britains have dabbled with illegal substances.
The reality is that recreational drugs are a significant sub-culture of British society. Aside from the apathy associated with cannabis useage I fail to see how it makes them any less entitled to benefits. Afterall it's probably cheaper than booze and cigarettes.
The only real reason for drugs testing in industry is one of health and safety. This is not an issue for the unemployed.
If you want a massive clamp down on drugs then I don't agree but fair enough. What I don't understand is the arguement linking them to benefits?
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
Whilst I'm not defending wasting your life and leaching off society the fact is that, depending on who you believe, well over 60% of Britains have dabbled with illegal substances.
The reality is that recreational drugs are a significant sub-culture of British society. Aside from the apathy associated with cannabis useage I fail to see how it makes them any less entitled to benefits. Afterall it's probably cheaper than booze and cigarettes.
The only real reason for drugs testing in industry is one of health and safety. This is not an issue for the unemployed.
If you want a massive clamp down on drugs then I don't agree but fair enough. What I don't understand is the arguement linking them to benefits?
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
Marf said:
Is there anything to support the supposition that a large proportion of benefits claimants "sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope",
He actually says: 'What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.' The numbers are unspecified; you invented the 'large proportion' part to suit your own argument.Simpo Two said:
Marf said:
Is there anything to support the supposition that a large proportion of benefits claimants "sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope",
He actually says: 'What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.' The numbers are unspecified; you invented the 'large proportion' part to suit your own argument.
G_T said:
Welcome to Nazi Germany.
Whilst I'm not defending wasting your life and leaching off society the fact is that, depending on who you believe, well over 60% of Britains have dabbled with illegal substances.
The reality is that recreational drugs are a significant sub-culture of British society. Aside from the apathy associated with cannabis useage I fail to see how it makes them any less entitled to benefits. Afterall it's probably cheaper than booze and cigarettes.
The only real reason for drugs testing in industry is one of health and safety. This is not an issue for the unemployed.
If you want a massive clamp down on drugs then I don't agree but fair enough. What I don't understand is the arguement linking them to benefits?
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
I don't think the issue is with whether taking drugs is a bad thing or not. The issue if that if you're on benefit then you shouldn't be spending money that you didn't earn on drugs. Whilst I'm not defending wasting your life and leaching off society the fact is that, depending on who you believe, well over 60% of Britains have dabbled with illegal substances.
The reality is that recreational drugs are a significant sub-culture of British society. Aside from the apathy associated with cannabis useage I fail to see how it makes them any less entitled to benefits. Afterall it's probably cheaper than booze and cigarettes.
The only real reason for drugs testing in industry is one of health and safety. This is not an issue for the unemployed.
If you want a massive clamp down on drugs then I don't agree but fair enough. What I don't understand is the arguement linking them to benefits?
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
G_T said:
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
Just make it random testing rather than weekly. Is a urine test for drugs a lot more complicated than those pregancy type kits can manage?phumy said:
And if he is a non-smoking rig worker he is still allowed to be pissed off....
I just had to go and 'research' whether you could still smoke on Oil Rigs! You can! Oil rigs had an excemption from the no smoking ban!!You would think that they would be the first place to ban it
Hedders said:
G_T said:
Also can you imagine how much it would cost the public sector to organise and test millions of urine samples per year? If someone is claiming £50 a week and the tests costs £100+ every week it rapidly becomes a false economy even if you exlude the enormous set up costs.
Just make it random testing rather than weekly. Is a urine test for drugs a lot more complicated than those pregancy type kits can manage?You'd need an accredited laboratory to carry out the tests. They'd need to do them at least triplicate as it could potentially be used as legal evidence.
Even if you tested 5% of those signing on once a year you're still talking tens of millions and this is the public sector so think hundreds of millions as they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.
When you weigh up that against the fact there is currently no evidence outside of anecdotes that this is an issue (Afterall if they spend their money on weed they can't get anymore so why would the government be interested?).
Sounds like a hugely expensive solution to a non-existent problem.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff