View Full Version : Urine Test

Alloa Akbar
15th Jan 2009, 19:11
Apologies if you have seen this before, but its a great point.. Not my words I hasten to add.. Author Unknown.Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test 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 welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A--, doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Beatriz Fontana
15th Jan 2009, 19:14
Bit of a step up from Norman Tebbitt's "get on yer bike" speech...! Journalists thought he was taking the pi$$ back then...

15th Jan 2009, 19:16
You are taking the piss, surely!! ;)


B Fraser
15th Jan 2009, 20:24
If the state forced the recipients to drink your donation then the workshy idle [email protected]@rds would be fighting for a job. I of course, would be eating as much asparagus as I could get my hands on :E

15th Jan 2009, 22:07
I bet you couldn't have done it when you took the little blue pill.:D

Had to take the piss before BF did.:ok:

cockney steve
16th Jan 2009, 01:34
I was about to say "you've been stiffed"

but quicker fingers beat me

16th Jan 2009, 01:44
The US Supreme Court has some strong views on the privacy of the home - and thus it can't be illegal to get wasted in the privacy of your own home, only to be intoxicated or impaired in public, especially when it would be dangerous (e.g. driving).

Maybe you are never intoxicated or impaired at work, but there's no way you can prove that that's never been the case, and so I don't blame employers for what may appear to be an overreaction. Welfare recipients naturally don't have that problem, and there are already rules on public intoxication, but if they're sitting at home getting wasted...am I bovvered?

16th Jan 2009, 01:45
AA.. you bring up a very good point and I totally agree with you. The fact that our tax dollars support the welfare of those who have no behavioural restraints is a pet peeve of mine. :ugh:

wombat four
16th Jan 2009, 01:46
Rule 3,

How do you know it's , Blue.


Wombat 4

Flap 5
16th Jan 2009, 10:51
'Urine or You're Out'.

Now that's a catchy phrase. Be careful the Labour government may well take that up.

16th Jan 2009, 11:00
How do you know it's , Blue.
We all know it was blue - see AA's past thread :ok:

Funny, there are two people on this board with the initials BF who enjoy extracting the micturation from AA; perhaps I should change my name to BurlyFig so I can join in too :}

Beef, why don't you have soome beetroot with that asparagus?



Beatriz Fontana
16th Jan 2009, 11:48
Whirls, I'm not sure to which BF Rule 3 was referring. I will always bow to B Fraser's superior wit!

16th Jan 2009, 11:59
Very appropriate:

Peru court backs drunk worker

16th Jan 2009, 13:46
Whirls you know which one, and so does she.

16th Jan 2009, 14:07
It does seem amazing that benefits, specifically those recipients claiming for over 6 months are not 'zero-toleranced' by the authorities. It might well be a positive step to make the recipients act in a dignified manner and those who chose to self-medicate with drinks and drugs shown the errors of their ways.

In short, you fail the test and urine trouble :=