The following was written by a serving British solder.
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?
Posts
15 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly.
maybe it should also apply to all politicians before they pass any legislation?
Over simplification - all soldiers good - all benefit claimants wasters.
A bit too Conservative to my way of thinking.
I find this post to be more than a little worrying.
As Crinkly has so rightly said this is an ”Over simplification”
As your soldier says – he has a problem – and if he has a problem defending a society where, in his opinion, some in need are less deserving than others in need, then I would humbly suggest that the military is perhaps not their most appropriate career choice.
In my professional career I spent a lifetime in daily contact with those who would not pass a urine drug test …
Yes, there were foolish youngsters whose initial experimentation had taken over their lives.
But there were also -
- Former squaddies who had great difficulties coping with the trials and tribulations of civvie street or holding down a job and had found comfort in alcohol and/or illegal substances.
- The down trodden housewives so spaced out on benzodiazepines that they didn’t know if they were coming or going.
- Innocent kids escaping an abusive home-life whose only temporary escape was chemically induced.
- The once high flying executives who once earned ridiculous salaries who thought chasing a line of coke would be fun but found instead that it ruined their life and they had reached rock bottom.
Should we not reach out and offer such people a helping hand and hope we can improve their lives?
As my late grandmother would say – “There, but for the grace of God, go you and I”
Simple answer to the problem - conscript all the druggies. Job done....
We've solved the problem where I live. See http://smalltownman.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/no-addicts-here/
Will we never learn …
‘Druggies’ are not restricted to the idle youth.
‘Druggies’ cover a vast range of individuals from across all social levels and intellectual backgrounds.
And one final tale for the day of a druggie whom I had the honour to know …
An elderly gent rather unkempt and dishevelled always wearing the same tweed overcoat. He lived on a meagre disability pension with apparently no family for support.
He was addicted to amphetamines and opiates, his need for these drugs had completely taken over every aspect of his life.
Then one November I saw him at the Remembrance Parade. Still in the same tweed overcoat but with more medals pinned to his chest than the general who was taking the salute.
That day changed our relationship, we began chatting, and he opened up about his life history.
Suffice it to say - guess how he became addicted – guess who supplied the drugs in the early years of his addiction – Yes – the military.
The amphetamines so he could keep going as a fighting asset and the opiates to mask the pain of the wounds he received.
So ‘druggies’ each have their own story to tell – we should try to listen.
Mmm,
Logic - he pays his taxes.
If everyone employed by the government were paid net instead of gross, what would be the difference in the amount of money the government had to spend?
I appreciate there are loads of other reasons from administrative simplicity to the principle of those who vote for more govt spending should see their income reduced accordingly, no representation without taxation eh!
Good point Joe.
It's simple but I don't think the message is saying that Crinkly. I think it's saying something about equality.
No, I don't think he has a problem JRB but he's identified one. Why are our military the only receivers of treasury money to be given random drug tests?
I appreciate the issue is much wider but saying the fact that some ex-military have difficulty adjusting to civvie street isn't helpful. Of course the fact that their ex-career perhaps put massive strains on family life and the individual (which it does regardless because that's the type of job it is), adds to their problems. Thankfully there are more organisations willing to help, but I agree, the alcohol culture is still far too prevalent in the services.
In my career I met many who weren't interested in coming off drugs and they'd boast they'd promised their health/social worker they would. For one reason or another they preferred dope. Such a shame we're still unable to get through to so many.
Ah Dioclese, simple solution which would help many I'm sure. The problem would be those who couldn't cope.
I agree with Crinkly. I just don't think it is the right approach. It also brands those on benefits as particular types and I don't like that either. Now if he was to suggest checks on everyone employed by the Treasury that would be different but to pick on the unemployed isn't right. The vast majority within that group, I'm certain, genuinely want to work.
I think the message of the poem is that it's impossible to treat everyone equally Jo. Good to see you BTW.
Thanks Rosie. Sorry I've not been in lately. Nice to have a browse at the site and see what's been happening. Quality stuff as always!
Pleased to hear you're ok Jo.
Post a Comment