Sound Advice

Hedgehog

Hedgehog

FGM General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
15,884
Reaction score
8,694
Age
86
Location
Leighton Buzzard England
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 to 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!
 
What a great idea. Over here though, it would never fly as there would be a great hue and cry about invasion of privacy.
 
For a start its totally impractical, just imagine the logistics of it, you'd need a medical professional to administer the test.

And the testing kits are expensive in themselves, I know (i worked at a drug clinic) that the urine test pots cost £5 each, and they only test for drugs, you'd need a seperate one for alcohol, any money you'd save by weeding out the bad eggs would be eaten up in the testing process.
 
Surely in a perfect world no one would be unemployed or there would be no need for people to work?
 
I don't see how it would right itself, you still have about a 1 million people to test fortnightly (presuming you test them when they turn up to sign), that's 5 million pounds every 2 weeks, plus the costs of paying the people to administer the tests, you still have to test everyone to make the system work.

There's a more fundamental problem, with the exception of Cannabis most drugs and alcohol leave the body's system after a day or 2, all they'd have to do is stay clean for a few days before the test, unless you want to test everyone every day
 
Jonny said:
I don't see how it would right itself, you still have about a 1 million people to test fortnightly (presuming you test them when they turn up to sign), that's 5 million pounds every 2 weeks, plus the costs of paying the people to administer the tests, you still have to test everyone to make the system work.

There's a more fundamental problem, with the exception of Cannabis most drugs and alcohol leave the body's system after a day or 2, all they'd have to do is stay clean for a few days before the test, unless you want to test everyone every day
Click to expand...

You test them when they sign up for benefits. Positive test-no benefits, come back and take the test again next year. After initial testing, you move to random testing. Positive test result-loss of benefits, come back in a year. No system is perfect but any sort of reduction would more than pay for the cost of testing. The labs that do test analysis are professionals but test administrators need not be. When I was in the military I was my unit's drug enforcement NCO. I attended a week of training and then was put in charge of administrating all the drug tests for the unit. As far as urinalysis not catching most drugs, you are correct, but that's why most facilities that test are moving to testing hair and not urine. Test administration is much easier, and many more substances stay in human hair for a much longer period.
 
ACSpectre said:
You test them when they sign up for benefits. Positive test-no benefits, come back and take the test again next year. After initial testing, you move to random testing. Positive test result-loss of benefits, come back in a year. No system is perfect but any sort of reduction would more than pay for the cost of testing. The labs that do test analysis are professionals but test administrators need not be. When I was in the military I was my unit's drug enforcement NCO. I attended a week of training and then was put in charge of administrating all the drug tests for the unit. As far as urinalysis not catching most drugs, you are correct, but that's why most facilities that test are moving to testing hair and not urine. Test administration is much easier, and many more substances stay in human hair for a much longer period.
Click to expand...

You said it for me ACSpectra,
 
Well there's one very easy way to get around hair testing, shave your hair off, when i worked at the job center a lot of the customers were bald anyway!

I'm not saying we should be paying for people to sit around doing nothing all day, just that systematic drug testing isn't the way to do it, people respond much better to positive rather than negative reinforcement and I just don't think it'd be cost effective.

As for not needing to be a medical professional, maybe not in the army but the army have a different set of laws to the civilian society.

Also are you really saying unemployed people arn't allowed to drink at all? you don't have to buy alcohol yourself to be able to drink it
 
Provided this “advice” comes really from a hard working man and not from a party-propagandist...

I dont like this kind of instigative campaign. I guess our rich western countries have enough money to feed some unlucky (or even sluggish) people. See how much money they burn at the stock-market or with military adventures...

You could as well demand to prohibit TVs or chocolate for unemployed people. If you start such measures you will end up with working camps or even worse.

Putting this money into education will bring more results.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Mehlsack said:
Provided this “advice” comes really from a hard working man and not from a party-propagandist...

I dont like this kind of instigative campaign. I guess our rich western countries have enough money to feed some unlucky (or even sluggish) people. See how much money they burn at the stock-market or with military adventures...

You could as well demand to prohibit TVs or chocolate for unemployed people. If you start such measures you will end up with working camps or even worse.

Putting this money into education will bring more results.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I disagree. People who hold jobs are required to meet certain standards in order to keep their job. No stealing, no weapons in the workplace, and yes many are subject to pre-employment as well as random drug testing. If they fail to meet these requirements they lose their job/revenue stream. Why should we not require those who receive money from the government/taxpayers meet a certain set of requirements? When I applied for a Veterans Administration mortgage to buy my first home, I had to meet a set of specific requirements.

No one is talking about taking anything from them, just placing some requirements on them in order to receive government benefits. I don't feel this is unreasonable.
 
Jonny said:
Well there's one very easy way to get around hair testing, shave your hair off, when i worked at the job center a lot of the customers were bald anyway!

I'm not saying we should be paying for people to sit around doing nothing all day, just that systematic drug testing isn't the way to do it, people respond much better to positive rather than negative reinforcement and I just don't think it'd be cost effective.

As for not needing to be a medical professional, maybe not in the army but the army have a different set of laws to the civilian society.

Also are you really saying unemployed people arn't allowed to drink at all? you don't have to buy alcohol yourself to be able to drink it
Click to expand...

All but a very few are completely hairless. This is a medical condition for which they would be able to provide proof of from a doctor. Other than that, cut all your hair off to avoid the test = no test. Come back when you can provide us a hair sample.

You do not need to be a medical professional to watch someone pee in a cup, or to cut a piece or two of their hair. Nor do you need to be a medical professional to ensure these samples are packaged and labeled properly and sent off to the appropriate location. This is true in the civilian world as well as the military.

No, I am not saying unemployed people should not drink alcohol, nor am I saying that everyone who is unemployed should be subject to such tests. Lots of people lose their job for reasons beyond their control, or suffer a bit of bad luck. These people are who the system was originally designed to help and I wholeheartedly agree that such a system should be in place and have no problem with my tax dollars supporting such an endeavor. However, if you are an able bodied person who habitually accesses the system for an extended period of time (ie, more than a year or 18 consecutive months) without a proveable medical condition that precludes you from working, than I feel that there should be some requirements you have to meet in order to continue to receive benefits.

I'm not saying anything at all about taking something away from someone or dictating how they use the benefits they receive, simply that there should be reasonable requirements and standards in place to try and prevent people from abusing the system. Those who do abuse the system are basically stealing money from those of us who provide it by the sweat of our brow, they also decrease the amount of money available for those who truly do need assistance. Is it really unreasonable to try and prevent this from happening?
 
ACSpectre said:
You do not need to be a medical professional to watch someone pee in a cup, or to cut a piece or two of their hair. Nor do you need to be a medical professional to ensure these samples are packaged and labeled properly and sent off to the appropriate location. This is true in the civilian world as well as the military.
Click to expand...

Over here you do, in the drug clinic i worked at we had to drug test people and the results were passed on to the courts, in order for the tests to be legally binding it had to be carried out by a medical professional

But that's a moot point, the main thing people think they will gain with this is money, i think it will cost more than it will save.
 
Jonny said:
But that's a moot point, the main thing people think they will gain with this is money, i think it will cost more than it will save.
Click to expand...

If someone is habitually abusing the system, it seems reasonable to me that they will continue to do so. If the system is able to identify such people and put a stop to their behavior the cost savings would far outweigh the money spent to administer the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom