Drug tests for people on benefit

#1
Hi, I saw this on another forum, which is was taken from facebook, what do you reckon??

Drugs Test (This was written by a British Soldier- 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 , I train for war and eventually deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs, 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.

Makes a lot of sense to me, but could it work, & would they ever try to enforce it??
 
#2
Far easier and cheaper to give them all the drugs they want to quickly kill themselves. Strengthen the gene pool with strong minded individuals and let the weak willed die.
 
#3
Hi, I saw this on another forum, which is was taken from facebook, what do you reckon??

Drugs Test (This was written by a British Soldier- 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 , I train for war and eventually deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs, 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.

Makes a lot of sense to me, but could it work, & would they ever try to enforce it??
Not particulary clued up on drug users and their infinatley devious ways are you?
 
#4
It's a waste of cash and resources. If they want to live on £35 a week, have a shite life, take drugs, have no self-respect. Let them. I don't give a fuck. I feel sorry for the wankers.

Not all people on benefits are gyro junkies....some are on benefits for other reasons.
 
#5
.. and just where am I going to get cheap and excedingly desperate hookers from if you manage this?
 
#8
Wasn't it the Labour Government who dispensed with Luncheon Vouchers, or Thatchers'? Because it was belittling to those on Benefits. Re-introduce LV's and then they won't be able to use the cash for beer and gear. If its demeaning having to do the weekly big shop with food coupons, tough shit, get off your arse and get back to work
 
#9
I think career dolies should be encouraged to take drugs. I'd far sooner have them at home seeing faces in the wallpaper, than out dropping litter and eating pies all over the place, spoiling the view and taking up space that normal people require for other purposes.
 
#10
Wasn't it the Labour Government who dispensed with Luncheon Vouchers, or Thatchers'? Because it was belittling to those on Benefits. Re-introduce LV's and then they won't be able to use the cash for beer and gear. If its demeaning having to do the weekly big shop with food coupons, tough shit, get off your arse and get back to work
FFS they'll just sell them and steal more, any other bright ideas?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
well drug related crime went down under nu labour as they made the benefits system so crap to regular people but kind to the dross sorry 'vulnerable people' so they earned more on benefits than they could in a job because they were too lazy to pay attention at school or go out and find a job so nobody wants them.
 
#13
nice litter earner for a private company to admister the tests
the more cash for appeals lawyers when the test goes wrong etc.
so what is the chav going to do suddenly get clean or go even more on the rob tbf anyone who's not stealing when on the dole with a heroin habit is lieing
 
T

Tremaine

Guest
#15
This has been on the cards for years, but will it help? Will it reduce the numbers of chaotic people using drugs and alcohol? Maybe the idea is to force certain people in to seeking treatment.Or maybe it's cost-cutting and more belligerence from the benefits office.

Not all benefit recipients use drugs and alcohol. But in the homeless charities "industry" , hostels and
shelters, a large number of their clients do. Again, we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.

With not a little experience with addicts and support , I'm reminded by this thread of John Bird, Big Issue founder. John has been homeless and has "used" according to him. He said back in 2007 (and has anything changed since then?) And I'm not saying I agree by the way:

"What nobody wants to acknowledge is that 90 per cent of people in and around homelessness have drink and drug problems. And 90 per cent of that figure are people who cannot control it.
It is addictive behaviour and the only way to tackle it and stand any chance of 'curing' the homeless is to treat it as the mental problem it is. Addiction doesn't fall under the remit of the 1983 Mental Health Act. But it should.
The people who are homeless through addiction are feckless, unstable, unreliable, incapable of holding down a job, feeding themselves or cleaning themselves.
You take them into a hostel, patch them up and put them in State housing on benefits and they continue to kill themselves at the State's expense.
They are ill and should be 'sectioned' - lifted from the streets and confined in the care of the mental health system, behind bars if necessary.
It sounds drastic - and I expect a lot of outraged criticism - but it is the only realistic solution".

Assuming the system is geared up and funded for such things. Food for thought.
 
#16
the old way of treating mental patients was to lock them in a loony bin and feed them "stabilising control drugs" i'm all for that hell they can even works like the old chogi laundrey system as well, cleaning the overals of the streat cleaners, its win win system they get the help they so desperatly need but cant figure out how to ask for, the world gets cleaner and the blight is removed from the minds of the normal population

lets not forget that loony bins that are self funding will work as much nicer places than the old abuse shacks, the plethora of counsellors in the country would hav efocul points from which to work and anyone who gets cured would be allowed to join the normal workforce sweeping the streets.

and should they relapse into the bad old ways well then its highly probable that whilst sweeping ht estreets they would stager under a buss or fall off a bridge and noone would be any the wiser.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Wasn't it the Labour Government who dispensed with Luncheon Vouchers, or Thatchers'? Because it was belittling to those on Benefits. Re-introduce LV's and then they won't be able to use the cash for beer and gear. If its demeaning having to do the weekly big shop with food coupons, tough shit, get off your arse and get back to work
And when your Redundancy/Gratuity runs out and you don't have a job, nor any prospect of getting one. What then?
 
#19
This has been on the cards for years, but will it help? Will it reduce the numbers of chaotic people using drugs and alcohol? Maybe the idea is to force certain people in to seeking treatment.Or maybe it's cost-cutting and more belligerence from the benefits office.

Not all benefit recipients use drugs and alcohol. But in the homeless charities "industry" , hostels and
shelters, a large number of their clients do. Again, we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.

With not a little experience with addicts and support , I'm reminded by this thread of John Bird, Big Issue founder. John has been homeless and has "used" according to him. He said back in 2007 (and has anything changed since then?) And I'm not saying I agree by the way:

"What nobody wants to acknowledge is that 90 per cent of people in and around homelessness have drink and drug problems. And 90 per cent of that figure are people who cannot control it.
It is addictive behaviour and the only way to tackle it and stand any chance of 'curing' the homeless is to treat it as the mental problem it is. Addiction doesn't fall under the remit of the 1983 Mental Health Act. But it should.
The people who are homeless through addiction are feckless, unstable, unreliable, incapable of holding down a job, feeding themselves or cleaning themselves.
You take them into a hostel, patch them up and put them in State housing on benefits and they continue to kill themselves at the State's expense.
They are ill and should be 'sectioned' - lifted from the streets and confined in the care of the mental health system, behind bars if necessary.
It sounds drastic - and I expect a lot of outraged criticism - but it is the only realistic solution".

Assuming the system is geared up and funded for such things. Food for thought.
A work-house system ought to be at least tried - i.e. containment in an institution that has a controlled environment (sanitation, feeding, security) and some sort of structured, productive activity. Those that can't cope stay in, those that shape up get let out on licence. Not sure what you do about the utter sociopaths (like the self-fouling git in that series about Strangeways), I guess euthanasia ought to be offered as an option....
 

Latest Threads

Top