Recently I recieved an e-mail from a friend in Perth. It was one of those little joke emails that you're supposed to send along. Normally I ignore them, but the title: "Piss In A Cup" attracted the attention of Jamie, who demanded that I read it.
The contents of the letter made a lot of sense to me.
The man says that he goes to work, five days a week as a fireman. He gets paid, and pays taxes, which end up in the pocket of homeless/jobless people.
The man complains that every few years he is required to "piss in a cup" for drug-and-alcohol testing. He complains that, in order to keep his job he must pass each drug-and-alcohol test, however his taxes pay the government-aid of those that do not have a job, whom statistically, will probably use the money to sustain a drug addiction.
He implies in this e-mail that, in order for people to get governement-aid, they should piss in a cup and clear drug-and-alcohol testing.
I grew up with a heroin-addict mother, and this I believe would be both a pro and con in combatting the spending of government aid, specified for looking after young children, on drugs. My mother would have found other means of earning money in order to feed her addiction. I fear that it would have involved either the selling of her own, or Heaven forbid, my own body.
However, I also believe that this would both save the government and country money and possibly even reduce tax costs. It MIGHT also reduce the illegal use of narcotics.
I'd like to know other people's opinions. Pro or con?
Should people be required to piss in a cup in order to qualify for Government Aid?
My opinion? Yes. Yes they should.
Hey James first I would like to say i love reading your blog and look forwrad to every new addition.
ReplyDeleteI agree that yes people should be made to "piss in a cup" to receive Government Benefits.
But could the government justify the headache of paying IMVS $75 per urine test, just to make some homeless vagrant eligible for a Centrelink payment?
ReplyDeleteTax money spent on testing, that could be poured into other divisions of the Department of Health.
I can totally understand, that you would rather save a homeless person from the hellish clutches of a Drug Addiction, but would you be willing to pay for it?
Having been through the Health System on many occasions, both Emergency and Outpatient Surgery, the Department of Health could spend the money used to conduct those tests, that would cost the Department of Human Services multi millions of Dollars per year, on replacing defective and unusable equipment, ward upgrades, and general patient care.
However, that is just one side of my arguement, and i could go into the pro side.. but it is late!
Until next time
~S~
Ok, well, there are a few points here:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, in answer to "Anon" - the price per test would undoubtedly come down as more and more tests are conducted. Also, the costs could be offset from, firstly, the fact that there would be some people who would no longer be receiving a pensions and, secondly, from law enforcement who might find that demand will drop as people discover that they will lose their pension.
On the flipside, however, if people were to lose benefits, this will result in more robberies and more vagrancy as people are thrown onto the streets by landlords who are no longer being paid by welfare tenants. This will lead to a drop in tenancies and so rents will fall - also resulting in a fall in housing prices. Some mortgagees will find that their house is worth less than their mortgage and so another financial crisis hits.
Finally, about the original email that started this - the fireman should recognise that his taxes also contribute to his wages....
cheers,
bj